Ask a question

    Reply
    Posted Mar 19, 2011
    7:57:54 AM
    View profile
    New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    Hi all,

     

    I recently switch over to ATT U-Verse from Charter Communications. I was a happy Charter customer for 7 years and enjoyed a blazing fast 35mbps/2.5mbps connection with sub 30ms latency to the major WestCoast POPs. The reason I switched was because my home was pre-wired with Fiber, expanded channel lineup, and only 400feet from the VRAD. Scheduled installation was great, the tech was ontime and the installation took 6 1/2 hours. 24 hours later and I've impressed with the quality of the TV portion of the service, but the high speed internet is terrible.

     

    1) The routing seems to be fubared with my connection, I have a 100mbit dedicated line at work which is also serviced by ATT. Before on Charter I could reach my work's network in 5 hops with excellent latency. Now I reach it in 12 hops, never using the ATT backbone to reach the network, instead it chooses Level3 as it's desired path with several timeouts along the way.

     

    2) Doing an ip2location on the public WAN IP assigned to my router, shows that I'm located in Washington D.C. when I'm actually in Reno.

     

    3) Running a speed test at http://www.att.com/speedtest/ results in a 9mbps/2.7mbps speed, no where near what I'm paying for. Below are the displayed stats from my 2wire gateway. I have 30 days to cancel this service, and will do so if I don't find a way to improve the internet portion of this service.

     

    DSL Details Down Up

    Modem TypeBuilt in modem - VDSL
    Connection Type 

    DSL LineCOAX
     
    User Rate32343 kbs5040 kbs
    Max User Rate56104 kbsNot Available
    Noise Margin17.2 dBNot Available
    Attenuation14.0 dBNot Available
    Output Power9.8 dBm-13.7 dBm

    ProtocolG.993.2 
    ChannelInterleaved 
    DSLAM Vendor InformationCountry {65461} Vendor {CXSY} Specific {12291 }
    Rate Cap32344 kbs 
    Attenuation @ 300kHz6.5 dB 
    Uncanceled Echo0.0 dBOk
    VCXO Frequency Offset0.0 ppmOk
    Final Receive Gain2.0 dBOk
    Excessive Impulse Noise0Ok
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Solved
    Mar 26, 2011 9:27:40 AM
    0
    (0)
    Expert

    No, it does not qualify as a problem.  It means that those hops are not responding to ICMP requests.

     

    But the fact that you can get other types of traffic to the other end (and indeed, the endpoint responds to ICMP within 70 msec) means that the hops are routing other traffic just fine.

     

    This is why traceroute is not a very good troubleshooting tool.  Many routers on the Internet treat ICMP packets as very low priority, and in some cases may not even respond to them.  That doesn't mean anything is wrong with the router.

     

    Accepted Solution

    New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    4,133 views
    11 replies
    (0) Me too
    (0) Me too
    Post reply
    View all replies
    (11)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 19, 2011 10:20:43 AM
    0
    (0)
    Expert

    Please download U-Verse Realtime, install it, and post screenshots of the IP/Profile tab, Bitloading tab, Error Table tab, and Coax/HPNA tab.

    To post screenshots here in the forum, you will need to upload them to a photo sharing site, like Picasa, Google, Photobucket, ImageShack, etc.

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    2 of 12 (4,108 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 19, 2011 5:31:59 PM
    0
    (0)
    Tutor

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    3 of 12 (4,085 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 20, 2011 8:57:39 AM
    0
    (0)
    Expert
    Edited by SomeJoe7777 on Mar 20, 2011 at 8:59:19 AM

    I don't see much wrong with your line except the downstream power level.  It seems too low for your distance from the VRAD.  However, it doesn't appear to be causing any problems -- the error table looks fine.

     

    Try a few other speed test sites, in particular http://www.speedtest.net .  Try several different servers and tests so that you get a good feel for what your download speed truly is.

     

    As far as your other issues, the non-optimal routing from home to work could be for several different reasons, but isn't by itself causing you problems, is it?  My home to work connection is about 14 hops as well (non-AT&T on the work side), but the round trip time is always around 45 msec.

     

    The IP geolocation issue will probably fix itself in several months.  I believe Reno is a relatively new location for U-Verse, and AT&T probably does not have proper registration of the netblocks in use out there yet, so the IP geolocation services will have the wrong info for a while.  Once AT&T properly registers the netblocks the location will get corrected.

     

    Are you having any other specific issues that indicate low performance?  If not, there isn't much AT&T can do.  Unless you can show them something along the lines of 300+ msec pings or maximum 3 Mbps transfer rates, they're going to tell you they can't fix what isn't broken.

     

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    [ Edited ]
    4 of 12 (4,056 Views)
    Highlighted
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 21, 2011 6:10:05 PM
    0
    (0)
    Tutor

    But don't you find it just a little bit strange that that the path the connection chooses is through Level3's backbone and not it's own? (ATT)

     

    Why is it traversing into foreign AS's rather then stay on its own, AS7018?

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    5 of 12 (4,004 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 21, 2011 6:17:35 PM
    0
    (0)
    Expert

     


    wepinto wrote:

    But don't you find it just a little bit strange that that the path the connection chooses is through Level3's backbone and not it's own? (ATT)

     

    Why is it traversing into foreign AS's rather then stay on its own, AS7018?


     

    That does seem odd, but we don't know the particulars of the routing policies being applied.  For whatever reason, AT&T might have some kind of transit deal in place with L3 for this particular route, perhaps in exchange for some other transit deal that they're giving L3 in a different part of the network.

     

    Again, unless you can show AT&T that the routing impacts the performance expected from a residential Internet installation, they're likely not much they can do.

     

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    6 of 12 (3,998 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 23, 2011 8:26:48 PM
    0
    (0)
    Tutor
    Edited by wepinto on Mar 23, 2011 at 8:28:15 PM

    Oh I have no doubt they can do it. The real question is will they, probably not.

     

    I could always saturate my connection just enough to impact performance and engage them at that point. That's pretty lame though.

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    [ Edited ]
    7 of 12 (3,937 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 23, 2011 8:34:08 PM
    0
    (0)
    Tutor

    Check this out, tracing from work to my u-verse at home. 4 consequtive traceroutes, in two of them an extra 2 hops are in play. Never once did it touch the L3 backbone.

     

     

    traceroute to 108.84.140.78 (108.84.140.78), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1)  0.437 ms  0.698 ms  0.793 ms
     2  amcore1.hostrack.net (204.10.143.254)  1.864 ms  1.731 ms  1.824 ms
     3  12.88.115.133 (12.88.115.133)  4.132 ms  4.121 ms  3.935 ms
     4  cr2.sc1ca.ip.att.net (12.123.155.70)  12.798 ms  12.662 ms  12.525 ms
     5  12.83.58.205 (12.83.58.205)  11.256 ms  11.390 ms *
     6  108-84-140-78.lightspeed.renonv.sbcglobal.net (108.84.140.78)  34.952 ms  35.094 ms  36.485 ms
     traceroute to 108.84.140.78 (108.84.140.78), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1)  0.432 ms  0.827 ms  0.974 ms
     2  amcore1.hostrack.net (204.10.143.254)  2.629 ms  2.532 ms  2.418 ms
     3  12.88.115.133 (12.88.115.133)  5.509 ms  5.384 ms  5.488 ms
     4  cr2.sc1ca.ip.att.net (12.123.155.70)  11.697 ms  10.932 ms  10.740 ms
     5  12.83.58.205 (12.83.58.205)  10.455 ms  10.701 ms *
     6  * * *
     7  71.157.102.5 (71.157.102.5)  13.556 ms  13.445 ms  13.316 ms
     8  108-84-140-78.lightspeed.renonv.sbcglobal.net (108.84.140.78)  34.387 ms  36.480 ms  37.510 ms
     traceroute to 108.84.140.78 (108.84.140.78), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1)  0.513 ms  0.890 ms  1.197 ms
     2  amcore1.hostrack.net (204.10.143.254)  2.853 ms  2.748 ms  2.619 ms
     3  12.88.115.133 (12.88.115.133)  5.821 ms  6.384 ms  3.960 ms
     4  cr2.sc1ca.ip.att.net (12.123.155.70)  14.412 ms  13.434 ms  13.047 ms
     5  12.83.58.205 (12.83.58.205)  141.894 ms  141.766 ms *
     6  * * *
     7  71.157.102.5 (71.157.102.5)  13.918 ms  14.575 ms  15.894 ms
     8  108-84-140-78.lightspeed.renonv.sbcglobal.net (108.84.140.78)  34.633 ms  37.073 ms  36.949 ms
     traceroute to 108.84.140.78 (108.84.140.78), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
     1  192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1)  0.554 ms  1.051 ms  1.430 ms
     2  amcore1.hostrack.net (204.10.143.254)  21.989 ms  21.883 ms  21.764 ms
     3  12.88.115.133 (12.88.115.133)  7.439 ms  7.333 ms  7.196 ms
     4  cr2.sc1ca.ip.att.net (12.123.155.70)  15.344 ms  11.429 ms  11.136 ms
     5  12.83.58.205 (12.83.58.205)  11.170 ms  11.827 ms *
     6  108-84-140-78.lightspeed.renonv.sbcglobal.net (108.84.140.78)  34.957 ms  31.694 ms  33.850 ms

     

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    8 of 12 (3,933 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 25, 2011 9:11:17 PM
    0
    (0)
    Tutor

    Would this qualify as a problem? 100% loss on Hop 14 and 94% loss right before my RG.

     


    HopHostLOSSRcvSentBestAvgWorst
    0te-1-3.bb-c.slr.lxa.us.oneandone.net0%60600.300.370.72
    1te-2-1.bb-c.ms.mkc.us.oneandone.net0%60600.790.891.09
    2te-1-1.bb-c.ws.mkc.us.oneandone.net0%60600.830.911.01
    3te-2-4.car1.KansasCity1.Level3.net0%60600.9312.61195.11
    4ae-5-5.ebr2.Dallas1.Level3.net0%60609.9810.4920.08
    54.69.151.1530%606010.0310.2715.36
    6ae-3-80.edge2.Dallas3.Level3.net0%606010.2313.2257.04
    7ATT0%606011.2113.7855.86
    8cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net0%606063.3564.0764.97
    9cr2.dvmco.ip.att.net0%606062.8363.8775.72
    10cr1.slkut.ip.att.net0%606063.1163.6964.71
    1112.83.58.2090%606062.5062.6962.86
    12151.164.101.1660%606062.5162.6763.01
    13???100%0600.000.000.00
    1471.157.102.594%46063.3863.5363.73
    15(TARGET IP ADDRESS)2%596084.0485.6587.35

     

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    9 of 12 (3,876 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Solved
    Mar 26, 2011 9:27:40 AM
    0
    (0)
    Expert

    No, it does not qualify as a problem.  It means that those hops are not responding to ICMP requests.

     

    But the fact that you can get other types of traffic to the other end (and indeed, the endpoint responds to ICMP within 70 msec) means that the hops are routing other traffic just fine.

     

    This is why traceroute is not a very good troubleshooting tool.  Many routers on the Internet treat ICMP packets as very low priority, and in some cases may not even respond to them.  That doesn't mean anything is wrong with the router.

     

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    10 of 12 (3,832 Views)
    Solution
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 27, 2011 11:43:48 PM
    0
    (0)
    Tutor

    I agree with you. Having had some time to use the service more, I am satisfied with the performance all around. Although the high speed internet isn't nearly as good as my previous Charter connection, it's still very good and the TV portion far exceeds the Charter offering. Since it is still new in the area, perhaps it will improve over the next few years. Thanks for all the feedback.

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    11 of 12 (3,390 Views)
    0
    (0)
    • Rate this reply
    View profile
    Mar 28, 2011 7:27:44 AM
    0
    (0)
    Expert

    No problem.

     

    For the past 3 weekends in a row, there have been intermittent routing issues in AT&T's network, likely as the result of a system-wide upgrade and/or reconfiguration.  I'm hoping this is a subtle sign that they are addressing some of their network issues.

     

    Re: New U-Verse Customer - Reno , NV

    12 of 12 (3,377 Views)
    Share this post
    Share this post