| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Bettermine
   |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:03:00 -
[1]
I ran a Pathping to the eve servers ..
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Robert>pathping 157.157.139.10
Tracing route to 157.157.139.10 over a maximum of 30 hops
0 hardcore [192.168.1.1]
1 centrica1-hg1.ilford.broadband.bt.net [217.41.132.200]
2 217.41.132.130
3 217.41.132.238
4 213-78-128-3.ppp.onetel.net.uk [213.78.128.3]
5 212.67.120.74
6 Vl531.lon-wal-access-4.interoute.net [217.118.117.21]
7 Gi13-0.lon-wal-core-2.interoute.net [217.118.119.25]
8 PO1-0.lon-002-inter-2.interoute.net [217.118.119.54]
9 ge-3-2-0-zcr1.lnt.cw.net [195.66.224.182]
10 so-1-2-0-dcr1.tsd.cw.net [195.2.10.126]
11 so-3-0-0-bcr1.tsd.cw.net [195.2.10.53]
12 iar2.tsd.cw.net [166.63.210.23]
13 iceland-telecom1.tsd.cw.net [166.63.214.198]
14 157.157.62.26
15 157.157.139.252
16 157.157.139.10
Computing statistics for 400 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 hardcore [192.168.1.1]
0/ 100 = 0% |
1 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% centrica1-hg1.ilford.broadband.bt.
net [217.41.132.200]
0/ 100 = 0% |
2 16ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 217.41.132.130
0/ 100 = 0% |
3 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 217.41.132.238
0/ 100 = 0% |
4 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 213-78-128-3.ppp.onetel.net.uk [21
3.78.128.3]
0/ 100 = 0% |
5 20ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 212.67.120.74
0/ 100 = 0% |
6 20ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% Vl531.lon-wal-access-4.interoute.n
et [217.118.117.21]
0/ 100 = 0% |
7 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% Gi13-0.lon-wal-core-2.interoute.ne
t [217.118.119.25]
0/ 100 = 0% |
8 16ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% PO1-0.lon-002-inter-2.interoute.ne
t [217.118.119.54]
0/ 100 = 0% |
9 17ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% ge-3-2-0-zcr1.lnt.cw.net [195.66.2
24.182]
0/ 100 = 0% |
10 17ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% so-1-2-0-dcr1.tsd.cw.net [195.2.10
.126]
0/ 100 = 0% |
11 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% so-3-0-0-bcr1.tsd.cw.net [195.2.10
.53]
0/ 100 = 0% |
12 16ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% iar2.tsd.cw.net [166.63.210.23]
0/ 100 = 0% |
13 32ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% iceland-telecom1.tsd.cw.net [166.6
3.214.198]
0/ 100 = 0% |
14 --- 100/ 100 =100% 100/ 100 =100% 157.157.62.26
0/ 100 = 0% |
15 15ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 157.157.139.252
0/ 100 = 0% |
16 17ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 157.157.139.10
Trace complete.
err the format is a little screwed .. but the important thing to note is:
14 --- 100/ 100 =100% 100/ 100 =100% 157.157.62.26
thats a 100% packet loss .. and if you run it again it varies between 93% and 100% at random times ..
|
Bettermine
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:12:00 -
[2]
Is there a DDOS attack going on ?
|
Bettermine
|
Posted - 2005.10.19 17:15:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Bettermine on 19/10/2005 17:15:56
Using the networkAdvanced=1, I changed my connection to instead of connecting via "Tranquility" I connect direct to the IP of 157.157.139.10
And since i did that i havent disco'ed for the last hour .. wtf ? Why would that work .. and it works on all 4 of my accounts ..
Or is the problem fixed ?
|
Bettermine
|
Posted - 2005.10.20 08:07:00 -
[4]
I think the ultimate frustration for me was to have a full day of play through Chribba's proxy, to log off to get some food, log back on to find it banned :(
So .. a solution that worked was to use a proxy that had no problems BUT was not approved by CCP.
Fine ..
Then can CCP approve a proxy ? Is that SOOOOO difficult to do for them ? On a purely temporary basis, and on a CUSTOMER FRIENDLY basis i would think that would make a lot of sense ?
I have been unable to play since 10 minutes before DT on Monday , but i wasnt getting angry as such, i work in IT and i could see that it wasnt CCP's fault, far more C&W routers ..
What DID make me angry tho, was the fact that as a community we found a solution to accessing Eve, (and btw CCP say they have NO restriction on how many clients can connect from a specific IP address), which to my mind was elegant enough. And then CCP ban it ?
Somebody has to explain the logic to me .. Proxy Servers are EVERYWHERE .. anyone using certain Internet Providers (NTL anyone) ALL go to the internet via a proxy, so what .. is CCP going to ban them too ? Because under that EULA rule if they banned Chribba's proxy then they must surely by god ban ANY proxy connections ..
Put it another way .. if your home IP starts with any of the private IP range, technically you are accessing the internet through a proxy, therefore breaking CCP's EULA, thus you should be banned according to CCP's logic ..
|
Bettermine
|
Posted - 2005.10.20 09:02:00 -
[5]
To Expert Newbie ..
Err i am not the one who is misunderstanding how a PROXY works .. NOT a router .. And they are different ..
And if you use an isp that assigns a private IP range, and there ARE many out there who do ..
Then all that can be traced is the route back to the ISP not to you .. thats how anonymous proxies work ffs ..
And I am not advocating using anonymisers, i am simply asking that CCP allow a proxy from a specific provider that we know works.
On a purely customer relations basis, if they are relying on this long DT to be able to fix the problem, what are the 100s of PAYING subscribers supposed to do if it doesnt ? Just shutup, continue to pay for a game they cant play and hope for the best ? or barring that a miracle ?
So CCP simply approving a proxy that does work ? Its only an option that i do think they should look at ONLY if this whole extended DT doesnt fix the issue.
|
Bettermine
|
Posted - 2005.10.20 10:08:00 -
[6]
You know .. I had this long post prepared, defending CCP, as i do understand and know how difficult it is to track down transient routing issues in clustered devices such as they use for their load balancing ..
But i thought wtf .. all i want to do is play the Eve which i love and i cant ..
Bah .. oh well best to rack some points up in BF2 then while i wait for light at the end of the tunnel not to be the train coming the other way ..
|
Bettermine
|
Posted - 2005.10.21 01:41:00 -
[7]
Works a treat for me now too .. and market is quicker too.
Thanks CCP
|
| |
|