Cisco whinge thread :)

Oh yeah:

We use Cisco kit of varying types:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

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=11ms TTL=116
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=116
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=116
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=116

Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 9ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms

- Pea0n
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Pea0n said:
The entire point of the tracert is that it tells you which hop is giving the latency. He says it is the router. A tracert will show where large amounts are being added, even a path ping would assist with this. A simple ping itself give naff all except the total, and that latency can come from anywhere as it tells you nothing, just the total. It could come from the local router, it could come form the last hop or somewhere in the middle. no way to tell...

- Pea0n
Click to expand...

No it isn't, no it won't. It'll tell you the time taken for each hop to respond to ICMP, that doesn't tell you if the router is adding latency to the actual traffic. In any sort of high end router forwarding is done in hardware and ICMP is done in the routing engine, which may or may not be busy at a given time and most routers consider responding to ICMP as about the lowest priority thing in the world
 
s0ck said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hardly matters, you won't get much less than 15ms on a DSL line, best I can get right now is 11.453ms but that's from the broadband aggregation router to the CPE so a fairly short path...
 
bigredshark said:
No it isn't, no it won't. It'll tell you the time taken for each hop to respond to ICMP, that doesn't tell you if the router is adding latency to the actual traffic. In any sort of high end router forwarding is done in hardware and ICMP is done in the routing engine, which may or may not be busy at a given time and most routers consider responding to ICMP as about the lowest priority thing in the world
Click to expand...

Point taken and I am well aware of how it works; probably teach me from posting after having beers. The point I was (badly and in this case wrongly and not up my own arse enough to admit it!!) trying to make is that the ping doesnt assist with the troubleshooting either other than diagnosing that its too high. As above, probably hardware problem.

- Pea0n
 
Last edited:
Yes, and that is also the same problem with ping so doenst really prove a lot.

I think the point I was trying to make is that if the latency is very low to the first and second hops and then much larger to the third or fourth (as an example) then its unlikely to be cause by the router as the end result of the ping would be end to end, the latency could be added anywhere. Again probably badly put across as Im terrible at explaining myself

- Pea0n
 
Pea0n said:
Point taken and I am well aware of how it works; probably teach me from posting after having beers. The point I was (badly and in this case wrongly and not up my own arse enough to admit it!!) trying to make is that the ping doesnt assist with the troubleshooting either other than diagnosing that its too high. As above, probably hardware problem.

- Pea0n
Click to expand...

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...?
 
bigredshark said:
yeah "Matt's TraceRoute", just a nicer version but it can flag up asymetric paths for you (not in all circumstances it seems though...). Dunno if there's a windows version though...
Click to expand...

Only had a brief look, reminds me of pathping. any idea of its based on a simialr idea?

- Pea0n
 
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...?
Click to expand...

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 :D
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Here's mine, 877, annex-a.

Code: 
Paradigital#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
Capacity Used:   99%                             100%
Noise Margin:    10.0 dB                         13.0 dB
Output Power:    20.0 dBm                        12.0 dBm
Attenuation:     36.0 dB                         18.5 dB
Defect Status:   None                            None
Last Fail Code:  None
Watchdog Counter: 0x90
Watchdog Resets: 1
Selftest Result: 0x00
Subfunction:     0x00
Interrupts:      138276 (0 spurious)
PHY Access Err:  0
Activations:     13
LED Status:      ON
LED On Time:     100
LED Off Time:    100
Init FW:         embedded
Operation FW:    embedded
FW Version:      2.542

                 Interleave             Fast    Interleave              Fast
Speed (kbps):          6976                0           640                 0
Cells:             56475552                0     553608779                 0
Reed-Solomon EC:      36307                0           243                 0
CRC Errors:             294                0           187                 0
Header Errors:          258                0           124                 2

LOM Monitoring : Disabled


DMT Bits Per Bin
000: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 6 7 8 A A 9
010: A A A A A A A A 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 6
020: 0 0 A A B B B C B B B B B C B B
030: B C B C B B B B B B B B B B B B
040: 0 B B A A A A A A A A A A A A B
050: B B A B B B A B B B A A B A B B
060: B 2 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
070: A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 9
080: 9 9 A 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 A A A
090: 3 A A A 8 9 9 A A A A A 9 9 9 9
0A0: 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8
0B0: 8 7 7 8 9 8 8 9 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8
0C0: 8 7 6 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
0D0: 7 7 6 2 0 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7
0E0: 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 6 7 8 7
0F0: 7 8 7 7 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 4 6 7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom