Cisco whinge thread :)

s0ck · 10 Dec 2009 at 07:16

Something to read if you're bored

I've tried three routers now.

I've gateway'd through a 2500 (no DSL WIC), a 1700 and an 800 series router.
All of these add 10-12ms to my ICMP packets and in game pings are roughly double that of a 30 quid SOHO router.
I have to surmise that the following:

1. DSL WICs add unnecessary latency
or
2. Something in the IOS/firmware of all three needs tweaking

I ruled out the 2500 as being old and tried a 1700. Same problem. I then said to myself, "gee, this one is pretty old too" and acquired an 877; they're all the same though.

I'm now back on my el cheapo router because a 25 ping in Quakelive is preferable to a 65 ping.

The only thing I can possibly come up with is store/forward is used by Cisco and cut through is used by cheap stuff? I suspect this isn't true though and they all use the former.

I'd be really interested to hear anyone else's findings on this or suggestions for improvement.

s0ck · 10 Dec 2009 at 09:25

Chief Wiggum said:
hmmm, I can't say that I've noticed problems on mine (but then my 877 is plugged into a cable modem for now). On your 877, try adjusting the MTU on the Dialer / ATM interface
Depending on the IOS version it'll be either
mtu 1492
ip mtu 1492
ip adjust-mss 1492

then validate with a show interface and look for the MTU statement. You'll have to shut /no shut the interface.

Cisco's should have CEF enabled by default which allows for faster routing of packets.

That's all I can think of for the moment

I have a feeling I've turned CEF off on the 877 (can't remember why immediately) but it would have been at defaults for the others, will check.
Will try the MTU stuff too, cheers

Pea0n said:
Something must be wrong there to be honest. When testing my lab through 4 routers (also all 2500 series) I never had latency that high. how exactly are you ruling out the routers?

- Pea0n

paradigm said:
Not got latency that high on either my 2651XM (Cable) or my 877 (ADSL).

If you've got some time on your hands (I know, who has eh?) it would be great if you could ping www.jolt.co.uk through your Cisco equipment and then try it on a SOHO unit (with no Cisco in between).

I will be very surprised if you don't notice an extra 10ms on your Cisco kit (final hop).

s0ck · 10 Dec 2009 at 11:14

Yamahahahahaha said:
You've done something funny to the config. Wipe it and start over.

If that still doesn't fix it, put the newest modem firmware on the 877. (4.0.0.19 afaik?)

Quite possibly! I don't really know what I'm doing

bigredshark said:
Success Rate is 100 percent (250/250), round-trip time min/avg/max=13/17/19 ms

There's a few Cisco hops in there too and it's over DSL.

What router is that m8? 2800?

I'm afraid you either have a faulty WIC or something's wrong in your config. Mountains of business ISPs use these devices for CPE, if there was a problem it would have been found and fixed long long ago.

That's the thing, it's not a problem as such. I can't see 10ms ever been enough for someone to pick up in a business sense; interactive traffic would have been near identical.
It's only when you get someone anal about their uber gaming pingz, y0, does it get noticed. Plus, back in the day, SOHO stuff might have been no better.

Perhaps I have unrealistic expectations about a 300 quid, older, Cisco router vs a very recent mass market £30 unit?

s0ck · 10 Dec 2009 at 12:01

Current ISP is Sky. Last ISP was Enta. Same on both. Config is about is basic as it gets. Will have a squint tonight.

Has the WIC1-ADSL been revised over time? Has the chipset changed, etc?

s0ck · 11 Dec 2009 at 09:10

I'm really pleased you all get low pings with 877s but has anyone been able to stick a normal modem on the line to compare?

s0ck · 11 Dec 2009 at 13:13

bigredshark said:
Indeed, personally I'm betting local problem until proven wrong - has the OP confirmed the duplex on the LAN interface and tried pinging from the router itself...?

Aint been home since but I will check all the suggestions when I do!
I'll be genuinely over the moon if it's a config error; I know CEF is off for starters and I've never manually set any duplex settings or MTU on it so quite a few things to try

s0ck · 11 Dec 2009 at 22:46

Tried all the suggestions, guys, no joy.
Sky router = 35ms to Jolt
877 = 45ms to Jolt

This guy also has the same problem and the same line of thinking; there's no way the 877 should be slower. Even if it is the ADSL WIC doing extra stuff because I have a crap line, I should be able to turn off whatever option it's turning on!

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/1299943.html

paradigm said:

Code:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Windows\system32>ping www.jolt.co.uk

Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=121
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=121
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=121
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 14ms

C:\Windows\system32>route add 84.234.17.86 mask 255.255.255.255 10.1.1.1
 OK!

C:\Windows\system32>ping jolt.co.uk

Pinging jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=121
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=121
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=121
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 20ms, Average = 17ms

First route is Cable, via a 2651XM. Second route is ADSL via an 877.

Yamahahahahaha said:
Just did a quick straw poll.

From 3 Cisco 877-M routers I was getting ~20ms to jolt.co.uk.

From an 1841 HWIC-1ADSL-M I was getting 13 - 14ms.

From 3 Cisco 857 routers I was getting 20 - 24ms.

From a Cisco 837 I was getting 16ms avg.

It may be something to do with the 800 series but I can assure you none of the users have ever complained about latency. All lines are fully synced at full ADSL speed except the 1841 which is ADSL2+ Annex M.

Any chance of a 'sh dsl int a0' if possible?

Here's mine:

Code:

tupac#sh dsl int a0
ATM0
Alcatel 20190 chipset information
                ATU-R (DS)                      ATU-C (US)
Modem Status:    Showtime (DMTDSL_SHOWTIME)
DSL Mode:        ITU G.992.1 (G.DMT) Annex A
ITU STD NUM:     0x01                            0x1
Vendor ID:       'STMI'                          'GSPN'
Vendor Specific: 0x0000                          0x0008
Vendor Country:  0x0F                            0xFF
Chip ID:         C196 (0) capability-enabled
DFE BOM:         DFE2.6 Annex A (0)
Capacity Used:   57%                             57%
Noise Margin:    18.0 dB                         21.0 dB
Output Power:    16.5 dBm                        12.5 dBm
Attenuation:     55.0 dB                         31.5 dB
FEC ES Errors:    0                               0
ES Errors:        1                               5
SES Errors:       0                               0
LOSES Errors:     0                               0
UES Errors:       0                               0
Defect Status:   None                            None
Last Fail Code:  None
Watchdog Counter: 0xDF
Watchdog Resets: 0
Selftest Result: 0x00
Subfunction:     0x00
Interrupts:      20216 (0 spurious)
PHY Access Err:  0
Activations:     1
LED Status:      ON
LED On Time:     100
LED Off Time:    100
Init FW:         init_AMR-2.6.004.bin
Operation FW:    AMR-2.6.004.bin
FW Source:       external
FW Version:      2.6.4

                 Interleave             Fast    Interleave              Fast
Speed (kbps):          1536                0           416                 0
Cells:                17212                0       1915763                 0
Reed-Solomon EC:          6                0            14                 0
CRC Errors:               0                0             6                 0
Header Errors:            0                0             5                 0
Total BER:                0E-0           0E-0
Leakage Average BER:      0E-0           0E-0
                        ATU-R (DS)      ATU-C (US)
Bitswap:               enabled            enabled
Bitswap success:          0                   0
Bitswap failure:          0                   0

LOM Monitoring : Enabled
LOM watch configured for 200 times
LOM appeared continuously for 0 times


DMT Bits Per Bin
000: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7
010: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 2
020: 0 0 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 5 5 6 7 6 0 7
030: 5 8 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 7 8 7 7 7 7 6
040: 0 7 7 7 7 6 2 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7
050: 6 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6
060: 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6 5 4 4
070: 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0
080: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
090: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0A0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0B0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0C0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0D0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0E0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0F0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DSL: Training log buffer capability is not enabled

Update: turned off LOM monitoring, no difference.