Menu
Reply
Highlighted
  • 7
  • 0
  • 0
Joining in
415 Views
Message 1 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

I feel like it's very often too high.  Varies wildly from under 25ms to 90ms.  

BQM from the last day:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/quality/share/ea12632902b97674af1b4f1035940f590a...

 

Speed test on Monday at 2pm:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/1589203540720588755

 

Network log:

Time Priority Description

12/05/2020 23:41:3noticeLAN login Success;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
12/05/2020 21:20:49ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
12/05/2020 11:16:40criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
12/05/2020 09:32:31ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
09/05/2020 00:33:55criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
08/05/2020 18:58:20noticeDHCP Renew - lease parameters tftp file-cmreg-vmdg505-rtsl10016u-b.cm modified;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
08/05/2020 18:58:20ErrorDHCP REBIND WARNING - Field invalid in response;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
08/05/2020 05:27:47ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
07/05/2020 17:58:11criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
07/05/2020 15:57:16ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
04/05/2020 19:39:14criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
04/05/2020 06:46:7noticeLAN login Success;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 17:33:4criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 12:53:32noticeDHCP Renew - lease parameters tftp file-cmreg-vmdg505-rtsl10016u-b.cm modified;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 12:53:32ErrorDHCP REBIND WARNING - Field invalid in response;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 07:06:39ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 04:25:40criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 01:19:47ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
02/05/2020 19:31:11criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
02/05/2020 13:46:6ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 2.42K
  • 384
  • 934
Problem sorter
400 Views
Message 2 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

BQM looks crappy.  The Network log doesn't point to anything conclusive, although in my view there's a few too many T3 timeouts.  You'll always get average latency spikes on a cable connection due to the technology used, but when it is working properly you'd hope to see average latency around 19-23ms, and the yellow fringe rarely going above 35ms.  On the assumption that you're on a 100 Mbps contract, speeds look fine.

I'd suggest that you post the Downstream and Upstream data from your hub, and we can have a butchers for anything obvious in there in respect of noise, power levels and error counts.  I'm assuming you've tried the usual simple checks like rebooting the hub and ensuring the cable connections are all finger tight?  Also, is this a recent thing?  With VM upgrading the network to DOCSIS 3.1 there's been many instances of short term connection disruptions, and the problem may disappear "of its own accord".

 

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 2.42K
  • 384
  • 934
Problem sorter
397 Views
Message 3 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

Just for comparison, this is my BQM (red block is when switched off overnight).  As you can see it's looking as good as you'll ever see on cable, although I admit some days are worse:

My Broadband Ping - VM number 2

If this was an Openreach connection there'd be little or no fringing because VDSL is far superior to DOCSIS in respect of latency.

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 30
  • 0
  • 5
On our wavelength
384 Views
Message 4 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

Also for comparison here is my BQM on being left in darkness by VM. I'd say yours looks very good. 

eac02d88b6d5b576ba4ab0f4da922de7f110c4c9-04-05-2020.png

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 7
  • 0
  • 0
Tuning in
350 Views
Message 5 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

Sorry if this is being posted multiple times but for some reason it keeps getting deleted. I've been experiencing the same exact issue since early March (especially on PS4 but across all devices). I am in Area 21 (West London) and the connection is impossible to use for any serious gaming. The ping/jitter is acceptable for surfing and emails during the day but literally unusable for gaming.

The VM told me that the "issue" would be fixed on May 7th which then became May 12th. I received a text update on May 11th informing me that the issue had been fixed but the problem still remained. I contacted VM again to be told that the text was sent out in error and that it was going to take another week. I have little belief this will actually get fixed but grateful if any of you could validate that this is indeed an issue on the VM side and what options do we have if we are in a contract still?

I have been monitoring using BQM and here is my live graph:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/quality/share/fc3c89bf518916f2d3b1fa08a9b7f31965... 

Network log: 

Time Priority Description

12/05/2020 13:38:1criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
11/05/2020 19:03:48noticeLAN login Success;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
10/05/2020 18:53:32criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
10/05/2020 16:18:54noticeLAN login Success;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
08/05/2020 22:25:29criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
07/05/2020 15:10:24noticeDHCP Renew - lease parameters tftp file-cmreg-vmdg505-rtsxxl35016u-b.cm modified;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
07/05/2020 15:10:24ErrorDHCP REBIND WARNING - Field invalid in response;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
06/05/2020 19:29:7ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
04/05/2020 02:21:18criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 19:17:58noticeDHCP Renew - lease parameters tftp file-cmreg-vmdg505-rtsxxl35016u-b.cm modified;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 19:17:58ErrorDHCP REBIND WARNING - Field invalid in response;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 15:21:39ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 12:01:20criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 11:25:24ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
03/05/2020 11:06:6criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
02/05/2020 11:47:54ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
27/04/2020 14:18:15criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
25/04/2020 19:45:30noticeDHCP Renew - lease parameters tftp file-cmreg-vmdg505-rtsxxl35016u-b.cm modified;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
25/04/2020 19:45:30ErrorDHCP REBIND WARNING - Field invalid in response;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
25/04/2020 12:41:5ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;

 

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 2.42K
  • 384
  • 934
Problem sorter
328 Views
Message 6 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

To pcal9:

BQM looks like another case of area over-subscription.  Seems VM are happily allowing this to happen more frequently at the moment, although the (useless) regulator Ofcom has challenged them over this in previous years.

Contractually, what are your rights?  Messy.  Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Virgin Media have to provide their service with "reasonable skill and care".  It is clear to you and I that the BQM shows they are not doing that.  If they genuinely intend to increase capacity, then minor slippage of the date is probably bearable, but often VM have no intention of investing money - the "fix date" is merely a future date, hoping that a few customers leave and bring the network back within capacity.  You can probably leave penalty free, but you'll need to formally complain to VM that they are not providing the service with reasonable skill and care, and you wish them to fix it by a reasonably soon "drop dead" date, or to release you from contract without penalty.  Expect them to refuse and or prevaricate.  If 8 weeks pass from the complaint acknowledgement without a fix, then you complain to the industry arbitration service CISAS, asking for release from contract without penalty and compensation for wasted time and poor service.  This process is slow, but given that despite many excellent employees, VM as a company don't have any "customer service genes", it may be your best option.  In any complaint to CISAS, focus on the effect on you and your service use, use the BQM or other data as back up - VM never promised any particular latency, so if you start off with "I get 90 millisecond pings" then they may not be receptive.

 

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 7
  • 0
  • 0
Joining in
316 Views
Message 7 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

Thank you for this. Here's the upstream/downstream data. I hit refresh data before copying these. Don't know if I should've done. I've ensured cables are tight. Hub has been rebooted a few times. I can't say if this is recent, as I've only just become aware since playing COD during lockdown haha. I pretty much got it at the beginning of lockdown and noticed it was all over the place on there from then.

Downstream:

Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) SNR (dB) Modulation Channel ID
1 419000000 3.9 36 256 qam 30
2 187000000 3 36 256 qam 7
3 195000000 2.5 37 256 qam 8
4 203000000 2.2 36 256 qam 9
5 211000000 2 36 256 qam 10
6 219000000 2 37 256 qam 11
7 227000000 1.5 36 256 qam 12
8 235000000 1.5 36 256 qam 13
9 243000000 1.4 36 256 qam 14
10 251000000 1.5 36 256 qam 15
11 259000000 1.7 36 256 qam 16
12 267000000 1.4 36 256 qam 17
13 275000000 1.5 36 256 qam 18
14 283000000 1.4 37 256 qam 19
15 291000000 2 37 256 qam 20
16 299000000 2 37 256 qam 21
17 307000000 2.7 37 256 qam 22
18 315000000 2.5 37 256 qam 23
19 323000000 3.4 37 256 qam 24
20 379000000 4.4 37 256 qam 25
21 387000000 4.5 37 256 qam 26
22 395000000 4.4 36 256 qam 27
23 403000000 4.5 36 256 qam 28
24 411000000 4.4 36 256 qam 29


Downstream bonded channels
Channel Locked Status RxMER (dB) Pre RS Errors Post RS Errors
1 Locked 36.3 4444 2341
2 Locked 36.6 16524 1427
3 Locked 37.3 12551 1212
4 Locked 36.6 13425 1940
5 Locked 36.6 14663 1273
6 Locked 37.3 14846 1083
7 Locked 36.3 17446 1032
8 Locked 36.3 14266 1137
9 Locked 36.3 12549 1152
10 Locked 36.3 11409 1076
11 Locked 36.6 10779 1202
12 Locked 36.6 7253 1025
13 Locked 36.6 7802 1101
14 Locked 37.3 7097 1111
15 Locked 37.3 4221 1053
16 Locked 37.6 5562 1109
17 Locked 37.6 3303 1020
18 Locked 37.6 3097 1107
19 Locked 37.6 3429 997
20 Locked 37.6 2488 1147
21 Locked 37.6 3006 2674
22 Locked 36.3 2985 4057
23 Locked 36.6 3671 2814
24 Locked 36.6 4384 3087

Upstream:

Upstream bonded channels
Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) Symbol Rate (ksps) Modulation Channel ID
1 32600000 4.575 5120 64 qam 5
2 39400000 4.575 5120 64 qam 4
3 46200000 4.575 5120 64 qam 3
4 53700000 4.725 5120 64 qam 2


Upstream bonded channels
Channel Channel Type T1 Timeouts T2 Timeouts T3 Timeouts T4 Timeouts
1 ATDMA 0 0 0 0
2 ATDMA 0 0 0 0
3 ATDMA 0 0 0 0
4 ATDMA 0 0 0 0
0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 2.42K
  • 384
  • 934
Problem sorter
260 Views
Message 8 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

@ whjwhjw

Got your pm, thanks, a pleasure to try and help,

Unfortunately there's nothing in your hub stats that explains the problem, although they do evidence that there is a problem.  A bit too much "spread" on your power levels for my liking, but as far as VM are concerned these numbers are OK.  However, error levels are very poor given that the hub has been recently rebooted since these are counted from when  the hub was last power cycled.  I'd guess (noting that I'm a community amateur, not a telecoms technician) that your cable connection has noise ingress from a faulty connection or a damaged cable, or perhaps water ingress in a joint somewhere between you and the street cabinet.  Your own cable is in good nick, is the one provided by VM, and is without kinks or other damage?  If a coax cable gets deformed then it can cause internal signal reflections that mess up the connection.  Bizarrely, this could even be caused by a damaged cable to another customer's property.

All I can suggest is waiting round the forum for a VM staff member to advise on next steps - that response could be quick, sometimes can take quite a few days.  Possibly there's a known area fault or upgrade work in progress - that's the best hope because it means something is being done already.  Absent that it will probably need a technician visit.  If they offer you a replacement hub, by all means try it, but be aware that on balance of probability the cause here is far more likely to be a cable fault than a faulty hub.  We've seen a few instances in the forum of customers having hubs replaced when it is blindingly obvious that is not going to fix a network problem.

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 1.73K
  • 125
  • 184
Forum Team
Forum Team
243 Views
Message 9 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

Hey whjwhjw,

 

I have looked into your account and the network levels in the background and can see no issues or network events that could be causing the problems you're having. Our system has ran some checks and shows that your hub hasn't been rebooted in 34 days, please can you try to reboot the hub and see if that makes any difference at all and if it doesn't then we can look into this further. 

 

Regards

Steven_L

0 Kudos
Reply
Highlighted
  • 7
  • 0
  • 0
Joining in
187 Views
Message 10 of 14
Flag for a moderator

Re: Trying to reduce ping. Does this look normal?

Hi Steven. Thanks for your reply.

I though the last reboot was sooner than that, but the ping levels shown on COD were definitely all over the place before and immediately after. I've just done another reboot now, so will share the router info and BQM again in a day or two?

0 Kudos
Reply