I'm sorry, I didn't notice the "if you use Cox part" please disregard my previous post. Armand Brian Cluff wrote: > > Hmmm, somewhere between the cox universe and that one there must be a very > crappy hop. Looks like if thats one of the main sites you are trying to get > to that cox might not be the way to go. > > I'l try and remember to do another set of pings in a day or 2 and see if > maybe there is a path that is down and its having to go around the long way > to get there. > > Brian Cluff From Armin Hartinger Tue Mar 6 07:35:16 2001 From: Armin Hartinger (Armin Hartinger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:35:16 -0700 Subject: Re[2]: do you use cox@home? In-Reply-To: <001f01c0a5f5$66a90f60$69891018@chnd1.az.home.com> References: <5367710873.20010305191714@pctechware.com> <001f01c0a5f5$66a90f60$69891018@chnd1.az.home.com> Message-ID: <186424540.20010306003516@pctechware.com> Hello Brian, Monday, March 05, 2001, 9:24:57 PM, you wrote: I hope that was a temporary glitch :) If you could rerun it maybe at a later time, that would be great. With Sprint Broadband, I get usually around 300ms at night. Flaky 500ms during day. That address is a MUD. This is the thing I wasted much on my youth on and where I met my wife and I didn't get around to playing it for like 2 yrs, because of bad links... Thanks for your help and keep em coming! :) -Armin BC> HOLY CRAP!!! what is that first one??? a satellite connection???? Thats BC> the only thing that I have ever seen that gets ping times that bad BC> consistently. BC> Brian Cluff BC> Here's the results you requested.... BC> [brian@napita brian]$ ping mume.pvv.org BC> PING fire.pvv.org (129.241.210.221): 56 data bytes BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=0 ttl=234 time=1023.3 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=1 ttl=234 time=1004.9 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=2 ttl=234 time=1025.9 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=3 ttl=234 time=1029.0 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=4 ttl=234 time=1028.8 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=5 ttl=234 time=1012.7 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=6 ttl=234 time=986.7 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=7 ttl=234 time=990.2 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=8 ttl=234 time=977.6 ms BC> 64 bytes from 129.241.210.221: icmp_seq=9 ttl=234 time=972.1 ms BC> --- fire.pvv.org ping statistics --- BC> 11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss BC> round-trip min/avg/max = 972.1/1005.1/1029.0 ms BC> [brian@napita brian]$ traceroute mume.pvv.org BC> traceroute to fire.pvv.org (129.241.210.221), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets BC> 1 10.78.66.1 (10.78.66.1) 29.801 ms 11.537 ms 11.744 ms BC> 2 10.0.211.101 (10.0.211.101) 9.366 ms 9.491 ms 7.848 ms BC> 3 c1-pos4-0.phnxaz1.home.net (24.7.74.165) 10.241 ms 9.807 ms 17.538 ms BC> 4 c1-pos2-0.sndgca1.home.net (24.7.65.134) 17.133 ms 19.215 ms 21.267 BC> ms BC> 5 c1-pos1-0.anhmca1.home.net (24.7.64.69) 35.926 ms 19.326 ms 19.646 ms BC> 6 c1-pos1-0.snjsca1.home.net (24.7.65.165) 27.266 ms 29.523 ms 29.291 BC> ms BC> 7 bb2-pos1-0.paix.nap.home.net (24.7.74.170) 33.439 ms 28.273 ms 36.427 BC> ms BC> 8 if-5-0-0.bb1.PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net (207.45.200.237) 33.872 ms 35.300 BC> ms 34.242 ms BC> 9 if-4-4.core1.PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net (207.45.223.182) 32.944 ms 30.681 BC> ms 32.870 ms BC> 10 if-10-2.core1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net (207.45.223.113) 870.407 ms BC> 871.847 ms 872.617 ms BC> 11 if-0-2.core2.London.Teleglobe.net (195.219.0.189) 969.904 ms 980.170 BC> ms 976.510 ms BC> 12 if-4-0.core1.London.Teleglobe.net (195.219.96.69) 984.181 ms 944.150 BC> ms 985.544 ms BC> 13 if-10-0.core1.Paris.Teleglobe.net (195.219.96.90) 983.789 ms 987.358 BC> ms 984.855 ms BC> 14 if-0-0.core1.Paris2.Teleglobe.net (195.219.96.98) 982.097 ms 978.870 BC> ms 969.814 ms BC> 15 if-8-0.core1.Frankfurt2.Teleglobe.net (195.219.15.206) 951.896 ms BC> 972.951 ms 983.204 ms BC> 16 if-1-0.core2.Stockholm.Teleglobe.net (195.219.96.18) 973.866 ms BC> 965.133 ms 970.816 ms BC> 17 e-gw.teleglobe.net (195.219.88.194) 981.265 ms 1005.779 ms 996.720 ms BC> 18 no-gw.nordu.net (193.10.68.30) 991.819 ms 994.053 ms 993.540 ms BC> 19 oslo-gw1.uninett.no (193.10.68.50) 981.310 ms 982.912 ms 975.810 ms BC> 20 trd-gw.uninett.no (128.39.0.250) 990.599 ms 953.033 ms 976.929 ms BC> 21 ntnu-gw2.ntnu.no (158.38.0.222) 974.284 ms 979.009 ms 969.459 ms BC> 22 sb-gw.ntnu.no (129.241.76.130) 968.486 ms 958.726 ms 986.337 ms BC> 23 fire.pvv.org (129.241.210.221) 982.919 ms 1013.688 ms 1005.341 ms BC> [brian@napita brian]$ ping www.hartinger.ws BC> PING hartinger.ws (216.92.236.40): 56 data bytes BC> 64 bytes from 216.92.236.40: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=92.3 ms BC> 64 bytes from 216.92.236.40: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=105.1 ms BC> 64 bytes from 216.92.236.40: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=80.1 ms BC> 64 bytes from 216.92.236.40: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=86.3 ms BC> 64 bytes from 216.92.236.40: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=81.7 ms BC> 64 bytes from 216.92.236.40: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=78.7 ms BC> --- hartinger.ws ping statistics --- BC> 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss BC> round-trip min/avg/max = 78.7/87.3/105.1 ms BC> [brian@napita brian]$ traceroute www.hartinger.ws BC> traceroute to hartinger.ws (216.92.236.40), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets BC> 1 10.78.66.1 (10.78.66.1) 11.707 ms 13.187 ms 20.599 ms BC> 2 10.0.211.101 (10.0.211.101) 9.366 ms 18.407 ms 9.200 ms BC> 3 c1-pos4-0.phnxaz1.home.net (24.7.74.165) 9.868 ms 37.868 ms 8.634 ms BC> 4 c1-pos9-0.lamstx1.home.net (24.7.65.129) 27.654 ms 24.600 ms 76.134 BC> ms BC> 5 c1-pos7-0.dllstx1.home.net (24.7.65.126) 35.404 ms 32.548 ms 54.959 BC> ms BC> 6 24.7.70.214 (24.7.70.214) 46.644 ms 30.885 ms 88.347 ms BC> 7 138.at-6-0-0.XR2.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.100.214) 30.530 ms 34.874 ms BC> 47.464 ms BC> 8 0.so-3-0-0.TR2.DFW9.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.81) 40.808 ms 58.599 ms BC> 59.708 ms BC> 9 128.at-7-3-0.TR2.DCA8.ALTER.NET (146.188.141.149) 72.664 ms 72.560 ms BC> 74.972 ms BC> 10 196.ATM6-0.XR2.DCA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.32.173) 80.892 ms 73.269 ms BC> 72.303 ms BC> 11 194.ATM6-0.GW3.PIT1.ALTER.NET (152.63.36.253) 79.483 ms 85.830 ms BC> 84.040 ms BC> 12 pair-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.48.162) 96.107 ms 80.379 ms BC> 83.961 ms BC> 13 192.168.1.5 (192.168.1.5) 78.561 ms 96.450 ms 81.819 ms BC> 14 hartinger.ws (216.92.236.40) 84.346 ms 79.273 ms 84.155 ms BC> ----- Original Message ----- BC> From: "Armin Hartinger" BC> To: BC> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:17 PM BC> Subject: do you use cox@home? >> Hello plug-discuss, >> >> Cox@Home is finally available in my area and I wanted to know how >> the latency of it is. If you use Cox, plz reply to me with ping and >> traceroute results to >> >> mume.pvv.org >> www.hartinger.ws >> >> Thanks in advance and sorry for the trouble! >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Armin mailto:armin@pctechware.com >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't BC> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail. >> >> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us >> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss BC> ________________________________________________ BC> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail. BC> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us BC> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss -- Best regards, Armin mailto:armin@pctechware.com From Armin Hartinger Tue Mar 6 07:38:04 2001 From: Armin Hartinger (Armin Hartinger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:38:04 -0700 Subject: Re[2]: do you use cox@home? In-Reply-To: <3AA4755F.6DAEB0DE@worldnet.att.net> References: <5367710873.20010305191714@pctechware.com> <3AA46AC8.5AA3AAAB@worldnet.att.net> <000401c0a5fa$09f91620$69891018@chnd1.az.home.com> <3AA4755F.6DAEB0DE@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <178592592.20010306003804@pctechware.com> Hello Armand, Monday, March 05, 2001, 10:27:59 PM, you wrote: Ahhh, you probably knew good and well and just wanted to rub your nice connection into my wounds ;) Last time I checked, Cox@home wasn't available in my area... today I get a mail-flyer, saying it is... I give them a call and they say "It Is!" and it seems it has been for months... blah. One thing for sure... I'll *NEVER* mention I use Linux, given Eric Thelin's experience, that they put you on a blacklist... Oh well, I'm just a ho to the mighty link... -Armin A> I'm sorry, I didn't notice the "if you use Cox part" please disregard my A> previous post. A> Armand A> Brian Cluff wrote: >> >> Hmmm, somewhere between the cox universe and that one there must be a very >> crappy hop. Looks like if thats one of the main sites you are trying to get >> to that cox might not be the way to go. >> >> I'l try and remember to do another set of pings in a day or 2 and see if >> maybe there is a path that is down and its having to go around the long way >> to get there. >> >> Brian Cluff A> ________________________________________________ A> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail. A> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us A> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss -- Best regards, Armin mailto:armin@pctechware.com