How is your ISP doing with increased traffic due to the COVID-19?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JB701
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 616
  • Views Views 48,196
Possible. You are getting consistent speed/latency throughout the day?

I am on normal ethernet. Maybe someone on fiber in Delhi can confirm if it's a known Delhi wide issue or only on ethernet.
 
My lco was having issues today with low speeds but latency was great as usual.
Right now, they are back to normal
It's a 25mbps connection so nothing special but what i like about them is the A+ ping times.

9166776855.png

9166771429.png

9166764221.png

9166872444.png

9166785789.png


Code:
ping facebook.com

Pinging facebook.com [157.240.16.35] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 157.240.16.35: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=56
Reply from 157.240.16.35: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=56
Reply from 157.240.16.35: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=56
Reply from 157.240.16.35: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=56
 
Same with Jio Fiber. Ping to facebook was 900ms+ about an hour ago. Now it has recovered a little but still it is 300ms+

Same with Jio Fiber. Ping to facebook was 900ms+ about an hour ago. Now it has recovered a little but still it is 300ms+
Why are they facing issues as they have massive capacity as stated in peeringdb .Also they have their own cable landing station. isn't it? Also they have less users pan india
 
Possible. You are getting consistent speed/latency throughout the day?

I am on normal ethernet. Maybe someone on fiber in Delhi can confirm if it's a known Delhi wide issue or only on ethernet.

Oh I wouldn't really know. I am not in Bangalore right now. I was just curious about the the notification on the portal. 😛

Anyway in BSNL world, I setup a wireguard server on a GCP VM (Singapore) and configured OpenWRT to create a WG interface and route all traffic through it. Surprisingly, my tiny OpenWRT router is able to handle the load just fine with full speeds upto 50 Mbps with no issues.

I might just do that temporarily with a tiny GCP VM and route all my traffic through that. 🎉 I was under the impression that my Mi Router 3G would not be able to handle the load.
 
Like that, I also set up a wireguard server on DigitalOcean. It's treating me well. Yesterday there were some slowdowns at around 10 PM. I was afraid today I will not be even able to load Google, but so far, soo good. Near like before latency.

How is Singapore GCP treating you?
 


Like that, I also set up a wireguard server on DigitalOcean. It's treating me well. Yesterday there were some slowdowns at around 10 PM. I was afraid today I will not be even able to load Google, but so far, soo good. Near like before latency.

How is Singapore GCP treating you?

But I get pathetic speeds from DO, else DO was the obvious choice. Are you able to download their speedtest files at full speed during the day? Or is the performance better to a VM than their speed test files? 🤔

GCP Singapore is pretty decent, I didn't do proper test during the day so not sure.

GCP doesn't support IPv6, so I've been trying to take advantage of the IPv6 speeds by having a wireguard tunnel over IPv6 but route IPv4 through it. 😉 AWS Mumbai has IPv6 so was trying wireguard over it.

And it kind of works. but for higher speeds my Mi Router 3G is the bottle neck 😆




It says BSNL, but the traffic is going over AWS Mumbai. At those speeds, all 4 cores on the Mi Router 3G is maxed out. 😁
 
Last edited:
@varkey how is the latency from GCP to other servers? Last time I tried setting up a VPN on GCP Mumbai, the latency to other servers from GCP was like 300ms to Singapore, 250ms for Germany, etc.
 
@blueman24 Yeah when I did a quick check on GCP Mumbai, the latency was a bit high. Also, they claim to have premium tier network also, where the traffic is carried over Google network the farthest and leaves / enters Google network from your closest POP.

But yeah the latency is higher than from AWS Mumbai to Europe 🤷‍♂️

So far, by tunnel to AWS Mumbai over BSNL seem alright. 🤞
 
Code:
root@varkey:~# ping -I pppoe-wan 182.74.xx.xx -c 4
PING 182.74.xx.xx (182.74.xx.xx): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=0 ttl=50 time=256.847 ms
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=1 ttl=50 time=253.608 ms
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=2 ttl=50 time=255.265 ms
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=3 ttl=50 time=253.042 ms

--- 182.74.xx.xx ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 253.042/254.690/256.847 ms
root@varkey:~# ping -I wg 182.74.xx.xx -c 4
PING 182.74.xx.xx (182.74.xx.xx): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=0 ttl=45 time=88.326 ms
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=1 ttl=45 time=92.605 ms
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=2 ttl=45 time=86.210 ms
64 bytes from 182.74.xx.xx: seq=3 ttl=45 time=100.207 ms

--- 182.74.xx.xx ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 86.210/91.837/100.207 ms
root@varkey:~#

The difference of going direct vs going via the WG tunnel 🤷‍♂️ Good that I spent some time yesterday setting it up. 🚀
 

Top