Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

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

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

4,248 views
11 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
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.

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 (4,223 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 (4,200 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.

 

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 (4,171 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?

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 (4,119 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.

 

 


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 (4,113 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.

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 (4,052 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

 

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 (4,048 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

 

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 (3,991 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.

 

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 (3,947 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.

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 (3,505 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.

 

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 (3,492 Views)
Share this post
Share this post