Hi there, I have an ip address of 203.167.252.27, can anyone enlighten me as to which ISP this is attached too? I think its TelstraClear, and it looks to be on the end of a wireless link of some sorted (really long final trace hop)?? Thanks Simon
It's certainly TCL: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=203.167.252.27 Can't tell you whether it's wireless or not though. Jasper greminn(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have an ip address of 203.167.252.27, can anyone enlighten me as to which ISP this is attached too?
I think its TelstraClear, and it looks to be on the end of a wireless link of some sorted (really long final trace hop)??
Thanks
Simon
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On Wed, Jun 14 2006 jasper(a)album.co.nz wrote:
It's certainly TCL: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=203.167.252.27
Can't tell you whether it's wireless or not though.
Jasper
greminn(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have an ip address of 203.167.252.27, can anyone enlighten me as to which ISP this is attached too?
I think its TelstraClear, and it looks to be on the end of a wireless link of some sorted (really long final trace hop)??
Thanks
Simon
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate. -- bryan bryan(a)magnummac.co.nz
bryan wrote:
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate.
Oh dear lord, ok I *was* going to leave this post alone, but sorry, I took the bait. I'm dumbfounded as to who made the executive decision that wireless == lag ? /me blames Woooooooooosh Newsflash: not all wireless technologies are "laggy" and in fact a lot are really damn good, latency wise. Congestion/rate limiting, who knows. (I shall now leave this thread alone so as not to inflict the wrath of t3h_d0n4ld) -Richard
On Wed, Jun 14 2006 richard(a)helix.net.nz wrote:
bryan wrote:
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate.
Oh dear lord, ok I *was* going to leave this post alone, but sorry, I took the bait.
Uh oh. it looks like I'm just about to take a hammering. :-(
I'm dumbfounded as to who made the executive decision that wireless == lag ?
/me blames Woooooooooosh
Uh yeah, actually yes, my experience (however limited) has been that wireless connections are laggy. I am open to suggestions otherwise.
Newsflash: not all wireless technologies are "laggy" and in fact a lot are really damn good, latency wise.
"Newsflash"? I accept that I have been, and can be wrong, but way to make me feel tiny.
Congestion/rate limiting, who knows.
(I shall now leave this thread alone so as not to inflict the wrath of t3h_d0n4ld)
Crafting a reply direct would have avoided wrath altogether, and saved me from the ridicule (however warranted). Thanks for your heads up though, I will now take some time to look at other wireless tech before sticking my hand up again. Back to lurking, -- bryan bryan(a)magnummac.co.nz
bryan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14 2006 richard(a)helix.net.nz wrote:
bryan wrote:
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate.
Oh dear lord, ok I *was* going to leave this post alone, but sorry, I took the bait.
Uh oh. it looks like I'm just about to take a hammering. :-(
I'm dumbfounded as to who made the executive decision that wireless == lag ?
/me blames Woooooooooosh
Uh yeah, actually yes, my experience (however limited) has been that wireless connections are laggy.
I am open to suggestions otherwise.
Newsflash: not all wireless technologies are "laggy" and in fact a lot are really damn good, latency wise.
"Newsflash"? I accept that I have been, and can be wrong, but way to make me feel tiny.
Congestion/rate limiting, who knows.
(I shall now leave this thread alone so as not to inflict the wrath of t3h_d0n4ld)
Crafting a reply direct would have avoided wrath altogether, and saved me from the ridicule (however warranted).
Thanks for your heads up though, I will now take some time to look at other wireless tech before sticking my hand up again.
Back to lurking,
While you might see this kind of latency on end user Wifi Routers and a laptop or portable base unit (i.e Woosh) your extremely unlikely to see latency in a fixed base unit installation, mainly because your average end user doesn't really understand that their dinky little AP doesn't have the power to reach their laptop through 3 layers of brick/concrete. Latency on any kind of fixed installation wireless never really goes above 2-3ms over 5+ KM's, even then your likely to see the link stick to sub-1-ms* *Based on experience of ISM band 802.11 Radio equipment Back on topic given the state of DSL right now in some parts latency and packet loss like that could easily come from an overloaded DSL exchange. I'm curious to know why you need to know what the last hop is? -- ----------------------- Tristram Cheer Network Architect UberNetworks Level 1 2a Vine St Whangarei 0101 M:021-715-823 W:09-438-5472 F:09-438-5473
maybe wireless, but I'd also look at what's on the RFC1918 address. Would also look at the return route. And layer 2 between hop 8 & 9 might be running through a cheap switch or something. jamie On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 19:38 +1200, bryan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14 2006 richard(a)helix.net.nz wrote:
bryan wrote:
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate.
Oh dear lord, ok I *was* going to leave this post alone, but sorry, I took the bait.
Uh oh. it looks like I'm just about to take a hammering. :-(
I'm dumbfounded as to who made the executive decision that wireless == lag ?
/me blames Woooooooooosh
Uh yeah, actually yes, my experience (however limited) has been that wireless connections are laggy.
I am open to suggestions otherwise.
Newsflash: not all wireless technologies are "laggy" and in fact a lot are really damn good, latency wise.
"Newsflash"? I accept that I have been, and can be wrong, but way to make me feel tiny.
Congestion/rate limiting, who knows.
(I shall now leave this thread alone so as not to inflict the wrath of t3h_d0n4ld)
Crafting a reply direct would have avoided wrath altogether, and saved me from the ridicule (however warranted).
Thanks for your heads up though, I will now take some time to look at other wireless tech before sticking my hand up again.
Back to lurking,
--
Jamie Baddeley
bryan wrote:
Given the packet loss and latency at that hop, wireless seems a likely candidate. I'd be shot and hung for that lag on our network. Wireless != Lag, Thanks very much Woosh
-- ----------------------- Tristram Cheer Network Architect UberNetworks Level 1 2a Vine St Whangarei 0101 M:021-715-823 W:09-438-5472 F:09-438-5473
This is getting rediculous. If you cant use basic tools to answer basic questions.. If you have to resort to a "website for n00bs" site to find these tools.. If you cant get be bothered contacting the obvious parties, and prefer to "just ask the guys on nznog".. * If the only reply you can give is effectively "hrmm.. I'm pondering aloud.." ..Dont post on nznog. This is not [helpdesk-buddies]. (GRRR.) * { [nznog] ISP for IP? [nznog] Telstra Clear fault in Christchurch [nznog] NTP [nznog] Telecom BRI [nznog] wireline.co.nz domain [nznog] Routing question ..etc etc etc } Jeremy. On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 18:11 +1200, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
It's certainly TCL: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=203.167.252.27
Can't tell you whether it's wireless or not though.
Jasper
greminn(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have an ip address of 203.167.252.27, can anyone enlighten me as to which ISP this is attached too?
I think its TelstraClear, and it looks to be on the end of a wireless link of some sorted (really long final trace hop)??
Thanks
Simon
here here!
Since when was this list a helpdesk?
On 6/15/06, Jeremy Brake
This is getting rediculous.
If you cant use basic tools to answer basic questions..
If you have to resort to a "website for n00bs" site to find these tools..
If you cant get be bothered contacting the obvious parties, and prefer to "just ask the guys on nznog".. *
If the only reply you can give is effectively "hrmm.. I'm pondering aloud.."
..Dont post on nznog. This is not [helpdesk-buddies]. (GRRR.)
* { [nznog] ISP for IP? [nznog] Telstra Clear fault in Christchurch [nznog] NTP [nznog] Telecom BRI [nznog] wireline.co.nz domain [nznog] Routing question ..etc etc etc }
Jeremy.
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 18:11 +1200, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
It's certainly TCL: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=203.167.252.27
Can't tell you whether it's wireless or not though.
Jasper
greminn(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have an ip address of 203.167.252.27, can anyone enlighten me as to which ISP this is attached too?
I think its TelstraClear, and it looks to be on the end of a wireless link of some sorted (really long final trace hop)??
Thanks
Simon
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Callum Barr me(a)callumb.com
My dialup isn't working. What can I do!?!?!
Sorry, couldn't help myself
Will
_____
From: Callum Barr [mailto:me(a)callum.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2006 1:29 a.m.
To: Jeremy Brake
Cc: nznog
Subject: Re: [nznog] ISP for IP?
here here!
Since when was this list a helpdesk?
On 6/15/06, Jeremy Brake
It's certainly TCL: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=203.167.252.27
Can't tell you whether it's wireless or not though.
Jasper
greminn(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have an ip address of 203.167.252.27 , can anyone enlighten me as to which ISP this is attached too?
I think its TelstraClear, and it looks to be on the end of a wireless link of some sorted (really long final trace hop)??
Thanks
Simon
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog -- Callum Barr me(a)callumb.com mailto:me(a)callumb.com
participants (9)
-
bryan -
Callum Barr -
greminn＠gmail.com -
Jamie Baddeley -
Jasper Bryant-Greene -
Jeremy Brake -
Richard Patterson -
Tristram Cheer -
Will Steele