Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 48381	2004-08-21 09:34:00	Is there something wrong with my connection	willie_M (5608)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
264000	2004-08-22 14:30:00	Query 202.89.128.19 at whois.thur.de Process query: '202.89.128.19' Query recognized as IP. Querying whois.apnic.net:43 with whois. % [whois.apnic.net node-2] % Whois data copyright terms www.apnic.net inetnum: 202.89.128.0 - 202.89.159.255 netname: MERCURY1-NZ descr: Mercury Telecommunications Ltd country: NZ admin-c: MH63-AP tech-c: MF83-AP mnt-by: APNIC-HM mnt-lower: MAINT-MERCURY-NZ changed: hostmaster@apnic.net 20010215 changed: hostmaster@apinc.net 20020125 status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE source: APNIC person: Matthew Hobbs address: Mercury Telecommunications Ltd address: PO Box 99856, Newmarket, Auckland country: NZ phone: +64 21 336-629 fax-no: +64 9 916-0301 e-mail: mhobbs@quicksilver.co.nz nic-hdl: MH63-AP mnt-by: MAINT-MERCURY-NZ changed: hostmaster@apnic.net 19991103 source: APNIC changed: mfrater@quicksilver.co.nz 20040422 remarks: ----------------------------- remarks: Send abuse reports to remarks: abuse@quicksilver.co.nz remarks: ----------------------------- person: Mark Frater address: Quicksilver Internet address: P.O. Box 99856 address: Newmarket address: Auckland country: NZ phone: +64-9-9160300 fax-no: +64-9-9160301 e-mail: mfrater@quicksilver.co.nz nic-hdl: MF83-AP mnt-by: MAINT-NEW changed: mfrater@quicksilver.co.nz 20020122 source: APNIC Query done.	zqwerty (97)
264001	2004-08-23 05:49:00	> You guys, that isn't very accurate.... > > I sent 500 packets.... you guys only did for... for > the love of science do 50 at least! Pinging 202.89.128.19 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56 Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19: Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 113ms, Maximum = 151ms, Average = 120ms Happy now? :D Mike.	Mike (15)
264002	2004-08-23 06:04:00	> > You guys, that isn't very accurate.... > > > > I sent 500 packets.... you guys only did for... > > for the love of science do 50 at least! I was bored, so I just sent 500 packets, increasing the packet size to 128 bytes and here are the results: Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19: Packets: Sent = 500, Received = 500, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 112ms, Maximum = 1626ms, Average = 129ms I would say its a problem with your connection :) Mike.	Mike (15)
264003	2004-08-23 06:25:00	Pinging 202.89.128.19 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56 Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19: Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 110ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 118ms I love our connection, we are like 3.5 KM from the Local Exchange, and then about 1.2 KM from (whati presume is a booster). All this about 4.7 km from the SH 1. Its awesome, we live on a farm.	MrBeef (342)
264004	2004-08-23 08:49:00	Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=56 Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=56 I win	Growly (6)
264005	2004-08-23 09:22:00	doesn't count when you ping you own nic growly...lol!!	davidb (5576)
264006	2004-08-23 11:09:00	I feel sorry for you Willy, all these clowns are showing how how good their connections are compared to yours. Same thing if someone says they cant get to website they take great pleasure in saying they can. They probaly cant but are just being smart asses. What you need to do is work your way through the trouble shooting guide from the xtra website for a start. Check your BT boxes if they are 3 wire change them all to 2 wire. It dosent cost much to change the wiring as well. Dont let the wire cross an electrical cable anywhere. I fixed one house by spotting the cable clip tack had gone through the copper wire cutting it. Every junction box you put in causes higher resistance, try and get your computer connection as close as possible to the Telcom line from the road. Put all your phone connections after the computer one. If your phone line is clear when you talk on it and the dial tone is not scratchy you are on a win. If its still crap ring Telecom and get them to fix your pair. I had problems and it was a high resistance join 5 km away its been mint ever since. I t was choice Telecom belived me there was something wrong and spent hours till they fixed it. Good lads. I live in Northern East Massey Dorkland ,dont laugh I have bad tv reception and 021 and 025 dont work here. I get better reception on backblocks in Helensville and Woodhill forest than here. So if us Dorklanders can have problems anyone can. Broadband is still too expensive and a great overkill I only need email , look at a few porn sites. When its less than 25 smackeroos a month unlimited caps and connects everytime all the time I might only then consider it. cheers tedheath	tedheath (537)
264007	2004-08-24 08:11:00	> I feel sorry for you Willy, all these clowns are > showing how how good their connections are compared > to yours. Same thing if someone says they cant get > to website they take great pleasure in saying they > can. > They probaly cant but are just being smart asses. Be careful who you're calling a clown tedheath. If you read Willy's original post you'll note that he actually asked us whether his connection was bad, and so we ran similar tests to his on our own connections so he (and we) could compare. Would you rather us ignore his original question and post unrelated replies? ?:| Mike.	Mike (15)
1 2