Quite. I run my main home network behind the first IP (masquerading the LAN devices for general 'net traffic), then have my domain's primary DNS running off a second IP, backup DNS running on a separate server on the third IP, a second domain running off the fourth IP and a general server (web, *arr etc under Proxmox) running on the fifth. I find I'm using IPv6 more than IPv4 now anyway as it's seldom unavailable these days, usually just on hotspots in hospital etc. The cost is on par with 3-4 full VPS with their own associated dedicated IP addresses though, so it's a bit much when you think of it that way.
Aquiss
- Thread starter Rainmaker
- Start date
Same here, actually. I'll file a ticket if it carries on tomorrow. We're switching to YouFibre in a few weeks (I put off the install for redecorating/renovating) so not overly concerned at this point. It's uncharacteristic of Aquiss though, I will say. I normally get rock solid speeds. Storm damage, maybe?
All good for me again today. Martin said there is only one known congested VLAN at the OR end, and that's the one mentioned a few posts ago by @zia.
Absolutely, @im4gine3. I also went from VM to Aquiss (same as Chris) and it was a revelation. My latency cut in half, it's way more stable, and bufferbloat is a thing of the past without needing to absolutely clobber the line with SQM. Customer service is a world apart.
Last edited:
Aquiss provide services over both OR and Cityfibre. You can get symmetric 2.5Gb over CF on Aquiss if you're in a Cityfibre area.
Did CF mean something else? I must have misunderstood you, sorry.
There can be some setup involved, depending on your needs and your router. For example, SLAAC vs DHCPv6, pulling the prefix etc. In your case it's already working, via SLAAC by the sounds of it. You might find this useful (it's a good video):
Not apples to oranges, but I had much the same experience. Support is A1, undoubtedly. The Enta backend wasn't exactly optimal for me though, and since switching to YouFibre my pings have dropped significantly (7ms to London vs 12ms, and 1-2ms to Manchester vs 15ms due to not routing Liverpool > London > Manchester). Anecdotally, my BQM/latency is much flatter too - no need for SQM and the graph is a flat 7ms day and night no matter what.
It's worth looking into the issue further if you're seeing real world issues arising from it, rather than just the graph not looking as sleek and pretty.
Code:
$ ping -c 4 -i 0.5 lon.speedtest.clouvider.net
PING lon.speedtest.clouvider.net(2a0d:5082:0:4::2 (2a0d:5082:0:4::2)) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2a0d:5082:0:4::2 (2a0d:5082:0:4::2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=7.35 ms
64 bytes from 2a0d:5082:0:4::2 (2a0d:5082:0:4::2): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=7.07 ms
64 bytes from 2a0d:5082:0:4::2 (2a0d:5082:0:4::2): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=7.28 ms
64 bytes from 2a0d:5082:0:4::2 (2a0d:5082:0:4::2): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=7.46 ms
--- lon.speedtest.clouvider.net ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 1504ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 7.070/7.289/7.459/0.141 ms
Code:
$ ping -c 4 -i 0.5 dns.quad9.net
PING dns.quad9.net(dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9)) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=1.64 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=1.74 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=1.74 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=1.58 ms
--- dns.quad9.net ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 1504ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.578/1.673/1.740/0.068 ms