🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <ff8df9b5.0311030127.1ec4a035@posting.google.com>, David 
<dmorlow@excite.com> writes
>Hi, I am new to ISDN.  We live in the boonies and finally figured that
>DSL or any other type of high speed internet would never become
>available here.  So we got an ISDN line installed.  It is OK.  But it
>seems when browsing webpages, it still loads pretty slow.  I just
>pinged www.yahoo.com and I got the latency time at around 175-180 ms.
>I was reading some other posts and people are complaining about
>latency at 30 ms.  Mine is about 6 times that!!!  Does anyone know why
>it would be so high and if there is anything I can do to correct that?
>
Assuming you are in the UK try pinging something this side of the 
Atlantic eg www.yahoo.co.uk .  What sort of equipment are you using to 
connect your PC to ISDN (eg USB on Home Highway, PCI card, ISDN router)?
-- 
Martin Liddle, Tynemouth Computer Services, 27 Garforth Close,
Cramlington, Northumberland, England, NE23 6EW.
Phone: 01670-712624.  Web site: <http://www.tynecomp.co.uk>.

On 3 Nov 2003 01:27:54 -0800, David wrote:

> Hi, I am new to ISDN.  We live in the boonies ...

The where?

> I just pinged www.yahoo.com and I got the latency time at around 
> 175-180 ms. 

That's much to far away across the net to provide any sensible answer. 
As this is demon.service.isdn I shall assume that you are a Demon 
customer not some troll posting to every group with "isdn" in the 
name.

Try pinging 158.152.1.222 that is the demon machine at the other end 
of the ISDN line and will give the latency of the link. It's a while 
since I pinged over the ISDN here but ISTR times around 60mS. After 
that explore with traceroute to other machines within demon then to 
ones close, in internet terms, to demon.

> Does anyone know why it would be so high and if there is anything I 
> can do to correct that?

Not enough information provided. Need to know more about what 
equipment/software etc you are using.

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.hnshet0.pminews@192.168.8.1>
           newspam@howhill.com "Dave Liquorice" writes:

> On 3 Nov 2003 01:27:54 -0800, David wrote:
> 
> > Hi, I am new to ISDN.  We live in the boonies ...
> 
> The where?
> 
> > I just pinged www.yahoo.com and I got the latency time at around 
> > 175-180 ms. 
> 
> That's much to far away across the net to provide any sensible answer. 
> As this is demon.service.isdn I shall assume that you are a Demon 
> customer not some troll posting to every group with "isdn" in the 
> name.

An unwise assumption; I think that he IS just a fuckwit posting with a
scattergun to anything with isdn in it.

His posting host appears to be ppp-172.62.triton.net [216.65.172.62];
Triton appear to operate out of Grand Rapids, MI.

[Snip what would have been sensible advice had the OP really been a Demon
customer.]

-- 
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                          bhk@dsl.co.uk
    "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would.  Yet we are
    untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
                                              George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:56:42 +0000, Richard P. Scott wrote:

> I don't think 158.152.1.222 is a good choice as it considers pings 
> low priority and responds slowly or not at all when loaded.

So what do you suggest within demon as good place?

> You may be using the USB interface on the HH box and BT software.

I'd forgotten about USB on HH NTEs however HH was but a pipe dream 
when I got ISDN... Best preformance is probably going to be an active 
internal card (expensive), closely followed by a passive internal card 
(cheap).

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:37:18 +0000 (UTC), Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:

> His posting host appears to be ppp-172.62.triton.net 
> [216.65.172.62]; Triton appear to operate out of Grand Rapids, MI.

I post from Germany but I ain't in Germany.  I do take the point 
though and with a name like that it looks very dialup.

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:28:26 +0000 (GMT), Dave Liquorice <newspam@howhill.com>
wrote:
> I post from Germany but I ain't in Germany.  I do take the point 
> though and with a name like that it looks very dialup.

Even so, it's still clear that your post originated from a machine in
the UK:

inetnum:      195.188.88.0 - 195.188.88.63
netname:      LANCASTER-UNIVERSITY
[...]
route:        195.188.0.0/16
descr:        Telewest Broadband
descr:        UK Broadband ISP

The OP's post originated from a dial-up account in the US. 


-- 
    Simon <simon@no-dns-yet.org.uk> **** GPG: F4A23C69
 "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
                       - Douglas Adams

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 01:56:03 +0000, Simon wrote:

> Even so, it's still clear that your post originated from a machine 
> in the UK:
> 
> inetnum:      195.188.88.0 - 195.188.88.63
> netname:      LANCASTER-UNIVERSITY
> [...]
> route:        195.188.0.0/16
> descr:        Telewest Broadband
> descr:        UK Broadband ISP

And even that is miss leading but getting closer...

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:42:00 +0000, Richard P. Scott wrote:

> Interesting. What do you consider 'active' and 'passive'? Are you
> suggesting 'passive' is some sort of ISDN WinTA?

I was hoping that wouldn't be asked.  B-)

"Passive" cards are the like of the BT Speedway, Elsa Microlink etc,
ie well below £50. I can't think of any "active" cards, I've never had
one far to expensive... they never really took off either.

--
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.hnwy1p0.pminews@192.168.8.1>, Dave 
Liquorice <newspam@howhill.com> wrote
>
>"Passive" cards are the like of the BT Speedway, Elsa Microlink etc,
>ie well below �50. I can't think of any "active" cards, I've never had
>one far to expensive... they never really took off either.

Perhaps consider that the majority of NICs in use for 100Mbs Ethernet 
are "passive" designs and then ask yourself whether the performance hit 
entailed in letting the PC's CPU deal with the mere 192Kbps data stream 
of Basic Rate ISDN is all that significant?

-- 
Bob Evans

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:14:44 +0000, Bob Evans wrote:

> Perhaps consider that the majority of NICs in use for 100Mbs 
> Ethernet are "passive" designs and then ask yourself whether the 
> performance hit entailed in letting the PC's CPU deal with the mere 
> 192Kbps data stream of Basic Rate ISDN is all that significant?

Possibly a hangover from when I started plying with PCs. You could 
read a "dir" listing as it scrolled up the screen...

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:14:44 +0000, Bob Evans wrote:
> 
> 
>>Perhaps consider that the majority of NICs in use for 100Mbs 
>>Ethernet are "passive" designs and then ask yourself whether the 
>>performance hit entailed in letting the PC's CPU deal with the mere 
>>192Kbps data stream of Basic Rate ISDN is all that significant?
> 
> 
> Possibly a hangover from when I started plying with PCs. You could 
> read a "dir" listing as it scrolled up the screen...
> 
Yes on a 300baud modem you could almost read fidonet posts as they came 
in. (Those were the days)


I feel the same though sometimes and yes I have an ISDN2e.

Cheers

-- 
Martin Saltiel

These computers will never catch on...

In article <snmdqv0rn07j6odkqac7d06ana9d236k4j@4ax.com>, Richard P. 
Scott <news@127.0.0.1> writes
>"Dave Liquorice" <newspam@howhill.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3 Nov 2003 01:27:54 -0800, David wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I am new to ISDN.  We live in the boonies ...
>>
>>The where?
>The boondocks? i.e. as far as BT are concerned, most places more than 5
>miles from a city.
>>
>>> I just pinged www.yahoo.com and I got the latency time at around
>>> 175-180 ms.
>
>>Try pinging 158.152.1.222 that is the demon machine at the other end
>>of the ISDN line and will give the latency of the link. It's a while
>>since I pinged over the ISDN here but ISTR times around 60mS. After
>>that explore with traceroute to other machines within demon then to
>>ones close, in internet terms, to demon.
>I don't think 158.152.1.222 is a good choice as it considers pings low
>priority and responds slowly or not at all when loaded.

That just gets me a timeout, though ISDN is working.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore

In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.hnwy1p0.pminews@192.168.8.1>
           newspam@howhill.com "Dave Liquorice" writes:

> "Passive" cards are the like of the BT Speedway, Elsa Microlink etc, 
> ie well below =A350. I can't think of any "active" cards, I've never had
> one far to expensive... they never really took off either.

They never took off because they were (and are) completely unnecessary;
as others have said in this thread, a "passive" ISDN card handles a much
lower level of traffic than a 100Mb/s Ethernet card, yet those too are
"passive" in just the same way.

About the only facility that "active" TAs were good for was handling
group G4 fax traffic; but how many (or should that be few) potential
recipients could handle G4 anyway?

Bullshit Barry was the only supported of "active" cards, and that was
only because he wanted to off-load a pile of inferior ones that he'd
somehow lumbered himself with.

-- 
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                          bhk@dsl.co.uk
    "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would.  Yet we are
    untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
                                              George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919