cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

major problems?

N/A

major problems?

I am experiencing slow connections to several places, maybe this is why?

$ traceroute <user1>.plus.com
traceroute to <user1>.plus.com (<ip>), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
...
3 lonap-gw1.plus.net (193.203.5.154) 1.420 ms 1.344 ms 0.945 ms
4 ge0-0-0-23.pte-gw2.plus.net (212.159.4.26) 1.051 ms 1.367 ms 0.880 ms
5 ge0-0-0-22.ptn-gw1.plus.net (212.159.4.1) 1.420 ms 1.143 ms 1.425 ms
6 gi12-0-204.ptn-ag2.plus.net (84.92.3.107) 2.420 ms 2.624 ms 3.977 ms
7 * * *
8 * * *

$ traceroute <user2>.plus.com
traceroute to <user2>.plus.com (<ip>), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
...
3 lonap-gw1.plus.net (193.203.5.154) 0.824 ms 0.906 ms 0.838 ms
4 ge0-0-0-23.pte-gw2.plus.net (212.159.4.26) 1.045 ms 0.906 ms 0.951 ms
5 gi11-0-404.pte-ag1.plus.net (84.92.4.11) 3.614 ms 2.868 ms 5.223 ms
6 * * *
7 * * *

$ traceroute <user3>.plus.com
traceroute to <user3>.plus.com (<ip>), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
...
3 lonap-gw1.plus.net (193.203.5.154) 0.795 ms 0.760 ms 0.800 ms
4 ge0-0-0-23.pte-gw2.plus.net (212.159.4.26) 1.161 ms 1.245 ms 1.214 ms
5 ge1-0-0-23.ptn-gw2.plus.net (212.159.4.1Cool 1.287 ms 1.255 ms 1.183 ms
6 * gi12-0-204.ptn-ag2.plus.net (84.92.3.107) 3.027 ms 2.858 ms
7 * * *
8 * * *

As you can see all the traceroutes die. I haven't run this when things have been working so I don't know if they have ever worked but I'd imagine so.
18 REPLIES
LiamM
Grafter
Posts: 5,636
Registered: 12-08-2007

major problems?

They're dieing at the end user connection, not anywhere in Plusnet's network though.

It's entirely possible, and likely, that the user you are tracing to doesn't respond to pings and/or is not connected at the time. That would produce results identical to those you're seeing.
N/A

major problems?

Odd. I am trying to connect to newshosting, a few quick pings - one from here and one from a server in london - show the following:

--- Here ---
>ping unlimited.newshosting.com -n 10

Pinging unlimited.newshosting.com [63.218.45.254] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2335ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2370ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2386ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2294ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2327ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2425ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=2574ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 63.218.45.254:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 7, Lost = 3 (30% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2294ms, Maximum = 2574ms, Average = 2387ms

--- London ---
$ ping unlimited.newshosting.com -c 10
PING unlimited.newshosting.com (63.218.45.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=84.4 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=84.8 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=84.6 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=114 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=84.6 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=84.6 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=84.6 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=84.8 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=84.5 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=55 time=84.5 ms

--- unlimited.newshosting.com ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 84.465/87.604/114.204/8.876 ms

Something odd's going on..
LiamM
Grafter
Posts: 5,636
Registered: 12-08-2007

major problems?

The first connection. Could you provide a ping and trace to portal.plus.net?
N/A

major problems?

>ping portal.plus.net

Pinging portal.plus.net [212.159.8.137] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.159.8.137: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.159.8.137: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.159.8.137: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.159.8.137: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 212.159.8.137:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 25ms

>tracert portal.plus.net

Tracing route to portal.plus.net [212.159.8.137]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms voyager.home [10.1.1.1]
2 19 ms 22 ms 18 ms lo0-plusnet.ptn-ag2.plus.net [195.166.128.53]
3 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms ge1-0-0-204.ptn-gw1.plus.net [84.92.3.105]
4 18 ms 19 ms 17 ms 195.166.129.3
5 25 ms 25 ms 26 ms se3-0.pih-gw1.plus.net [195.166.129.250]
6 26 ms 27 ms 26 ms vlan8.pih-gw4.plus.net [212.159.0.30]
7 27 ms 25 ms 26 ms pih-al4.plus.net [212.159.1.36]
8 26 ms 25 ms 27 ms portal.plus.net [212.159.8.137]

Trace complete.
LiamM
Grafter
Posts: 5,636
Registered: 12-08-2007

major problems?

Hmm, so thats perfectly normal. What about a trace from you to unlimited.newshosting.com?
N/A

major problems?

>tracert unlimited.newshosting.com

Tracing route to unlimited.newshosting.com [63.218.45.254]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms voyager.home [10.1.1.1]
2 25 ms 18 ms 18 ms lo0-plusnet.ptn-ag2.plus.net [195.166.128.53]
3 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms ge1-0-0-204.ptn-gw2.plus.net [84.92.3.106]
4 18 ms 19 ms 17 ms ge0-0-0-23.pte-gw1.plus.net [212.159.4.25]
5 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms gi1-1-22.pte-gw5.plus.net [212.159.4.7]
6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms ge2-2.fr1.lon.llnw.net [193.203.5.68]
7 18 ms 19 ms 19 ms ag1-6-1.ar1.lon.llnw.net [68.142.84.230]
8 86 ms 85 ms 86 ms oc240-so1-4-1.ar1.lga.llnw.net [69.28.172.13]
9 91 ms 91 ms 90 ms oc240-so1-4-1.ar1.iad.llnw.net [69.28.172.10]
10 95 ms 97 ms 94 ms tge7-4.fr1.iad.llnw.net [69.28.156.178]
11 91 ms 90 ms 90 ms highwinds.10ge4-3.fr1.iad.llnw.net [68.142.111.198]
12 2366 ms * 2340 ms 63.218.45.254

Trace complete.
LiamM
Grafter
Posts: 5,636
Registered: 12-08-2007

major problems?

That is strange.

It gets through Plusnet fine and the delay is only apparent on the last hop to the server.

Can't think why tbh and it is late so I'm going to shoot off to bed and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be able to pick up on this.

For Reference, here is mine to the same IP :

Tracing route to 63.218.45.254 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 24 ms 21 ms 21 ms lo0-plusnet.pte-ag1.plus.net [195.166.128.64]
3 23 ms 22 ms 21 ms ge1-0-0-404.pte-gw2.plus.net [84.92.4.10]
4 22 ms 21 ms 20 ms gi1-1-22.pte-gw5.plus.net [212.159.4.7]
5 26 ms 24 ms 24 ms ge2-2.fr1.lon.llnw.net [193.203.5.68]
6 22 ms 22 ms 25 ms ag1-6-1.ar1.lon.llnw.net [68.142.84.230]
7 94 ms 95 ms 95 ms oc240-so1-4-1.ar1.lga.llnw.net [69.28.172.13]
8 94 ms 95 ms 98 ms oc240-so1-4-1.ar1.iad.llnw.net [69.28.172.10]
9 116 ms 105 ms 96 ms tge7-4.fr1.iad.llnw.net [69.28.156.178]
10 101 ms 99 ms 100 ms highwinds.10ge4-3.fr1.iad.llnw.net [68.142.111.1
98]
11 97 ms 96 ms 93 ms 63.218.45.254

Trace complete.
MysteryFCM
Grafter
Posts: 528
Registered: 30-08-2007

major problems?

Perhaps throttled or banned by the servers admin?

Did a tracert to it myself and got;

Quote


Tracing route to 63.218.45.254 over a maximum of 30 hops



1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1

2 38 ms 51 ms 38 ms lo0-plusnet.pte-ag1.plus.net [195.166.128.64]

3 36 ms 42 ms 42 ms ge1-0-0-404.pte-gw2.plus.net [84.92.4.10]

4 49 ms 26 ms 41 ms gi1-1-22.pte-gw5.plus.net [212.159.4.7]

5 24 ms 25 ms 24 ms ge2-2.fr1.lon.llnw.net [193.203.5.68]

6 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms ag1-6-1.ar1.lon.llnw.net [68.142.84.230]

7 97 ms 99 ms 93 ms oc240-so1-4-1.ar1.lga.llnw.net [69.28.172.13]

8 99 ms 129 ms 101 ms oc240-so1-4-1.ar1.iad.llnw.net [69.28.172.10]

9 111 ms 141 ms 121 ms tge7-4.fr1.iad.llnw.net [69.28.156.178]

10 161 ms 199 ms 204 ms highwinds.10ge4-3.fr1.iad.llnw.net [68.142.111.198]

11 106 ms 116 ms 114 ms 63.218.45.254



Trace complete.

N/A

major problems?

It was working fine at about 3am, was getting close to 6mbits, but now it is very slow again. Could this be caused by plusnet's peak time level management stuff? I am on level 1 peak time management and I am very sure that it doesn't know when peak is and hence is in place for longer than it should be.
N/A

major problems?

Just to demonstrate how bad it is, it is now 12:30pm - which is not during peak time - and I am downloading from newshosting at a stable 4KB/s. Nice peak time management plusnet.
JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

major problems?

If this was a problem with our network, then I'd expect the first few hops to have a much higher ping time on the traceroute results. Similarly, if the issue was just down to traffic management, then I'd not expect to see anything showing up in the trace at all. So from the results you've provided its much more likely that the servers at the other end are handling a lot of traffic.

Have you tried contacting them to see if they are experiencing any problems or unusually high ammounts of traffic at the moment?
N/A

major problems?

From here:

>ping -n 10 unlimited.newshosting.com

Pinging unlimited.newshosting.com [63.218.45.254] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3130ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3195ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3269ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3299ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3220ms TTL=52
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3467ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 63.218.45.254: bytes=32 time=3040ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 63.218.45.254:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 7, Lost = 3 (30% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 3040ms, Maximum = 3467ms, Average = 3231ms

And from my server in london:

$ ping unlimited.newshosting.com -c 10
PING unlimited.newshosting.com (63.218.45.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=85.1 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=89.7 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=88.7 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=85.4 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=89.5 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=89.6 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=89.4 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=86.6 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=84.7 ms
64 bytes from 63.218.45.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=55 time=85.5 ms

--- unlimited.newshosting.com ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 84.738/87.464/89.758/2.031 ms

These were both just run, if they were having problems with high load then surely both would have high pings..
N/A

major problems?

I've been talking to several plusnet customers on my exchange. Anyone with no usage limits can ping unlimited.newshosting.com and get a sensible 100ms. Me, on level 1 management, can ping it and get 3000ms, and some other guy on level 3 management can't ping it at all. We can all ping news.newshosting.com. The way it appears to work is this:

1) We use a certain server, this is added to the usage amounts.
2) We go over the limit
3) PN put a cap on access to any servers we've accessed via certian protocols

This would explain why the unlimited server which I use is slow, and the other one is fine - despite them being on the same subnet in America somewhere.

The ping times we're experiencing seem to be the same at all times of the day, except last night at 3am I noticed that the ping to the unlimited server was fine. Exactly when it decided to start being decent - not before 1am - and when it started to be useless again I don't know. All I do know is that it certianly isn't taking effect at 4pm and Midnight as it should be doing.

Can you please look in to this PlusNet? Surely your management system has sensible logs which will show when it is being applied and taken off my account, and what it's blocking/slowing, and so forth...

Just telling me to run BT speed checks isn't helpful.

Thanks.
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 12,169
Thanks: 18
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-04-2007

major problems?

Hi,

As discussed leave this with me and I'll take a look into it for you and get back to you.