| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Bom Bolenath
   |
Posted - 2008.06.20 18:50:00 -
[31]
Bumps for this as the only viable explanation to the current rash of disconnects I can find.
|
HotSeat
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 18:58:00 -
[32]
Rant RANT RANT!!!!
Is my day off, would be nice to play Eve.... Live in Ontario and same issue
Sov 4 is nothing compared to the Power of the Grief !! |
Anastasiya Makalov
GIT-R-DUN
Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 19:52:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Anastasiya Makalov on 20/06/2008 19:54:56
I ran a traceroute to the TQ server. Currently, according to:
http://www.internetpulse.net/Main.aspx?Metric=AvailNtwk
Savvis' Chicago routers are down completely. Oh, that makes sense...until I ran a traceroute.
here you see I get a 20% packet loss in London. The hop just prior to it:
I get 0% packet loss. The issue seems to be from the ISP in London (which doesn't appear to be CCP's fault anyway).
Opinions? Can other people run their traceroutes and see if they have similar results to London from the US/Canada?
I used VisualRoute 2008 Trial version to get the nifty map.
EDIT: Edited as I'm a newb and uploaded the same screeny twice >.> Fixed now
|
Hungry Hippo
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 20:08:00 -
[34]
Whats the servers IP in London?
|
Anastasiya Makalov
GIT-R-DUN
Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 20:19:00 -
[35]
 Originally by: Hungry Hippo
Whats the servers IP in London?
87.237.38.200
|
ToysForBoys
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 20:19:00 -
[36]
Edited by: ToysForBoys on 20/06/2008 20:20:19
I am on Cox Cable Modem service. I have 3 computers in my home all of which have Eve installed. I have lost connections on all 3 constantly the past 2 days which is very rare. My brother-in-laws and I play religiously here and have never had this problem. I left 2 of the machines logged into Eve while I went to play Age of Conan Online. I never lost connectivity to Age of Conan Online, but Eve constantly is disconnected. Conan servers maybe on different GSP than the nodes Eve is on?
I lost connection to Eve over 15 times today alone; it is unplayable at the moment.
This is not a internet connection issue with my provider. Not sure if it is software,server, GSP related or combo.
TECHNICAL DETAILS:
GEO-LOC: VIRGINIA, USA
ISP: COX COMMUNICATIONS
GSP: UNKNOWN
TRACE:
Tracing route to 87.237.39.199 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms **Undisclosed - Source PC**
2 10 ms 10 ms 9 ms **Undisclosed - Home Router**
3 11 ms 9 ms 10 ms **Undisclosed**
4 28 ms 9 ms 10 ms 172.22.48.226
5 10 ms 11 ms 9 ms 172.22.48.58
6 10 ms 10 ms 9 ms nrfkdsrj01-ge703.rd.hr.cox.net [68.10.14.9]
7 20 ms 21 ms 19 ms nyrkbbrj02-so000.0.r2.ny.cox.net [68.1.0.251]
8 108 ms 126 ms 104 ms tge8-1.fr3.ams.llnw.net [69.28.171.85]
9 119 ms 128 ms 123 ms tge7-2.fr3.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.94]
10 114 ms 114 ms 111 ms ve5.fr4.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.138]
11 115 ms 114 ms 112 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
12 113 ms 112 ms 114 ms 87.237.39.199
Trace complete.
PACKET SAMPLE:
No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info
26 5.6767 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Retransmission] paging-port > quake [PSH, ACK] Seq=1725 Ack=8029 Win=65535 Len=192
27 5.966903 87.237.38.200 **PRIVATE PC** TCP [TCP Previous segment lost] quake > paging-port [ACK] Seq=8113 Ack=1917 Win=65243 Len=0
28 6.298228 87.237.38.200 **PRIVATE PC** TCP [TCP Retransmission] quake > paging-port [PSH, ACK] Seq=8029 Ack=1917 Win=65243 Len=84
96 22.959236 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Retransmission] paging-port > quake [PSH, ACK] Seq=4125 Ack=11997 Win=65535 Len=232
136 25.803197 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Retransmission] paging-port > quake [PSH, ACK] Seq=5973 Ack=22809 Win=65263 Len=108
138 25.917909 87.237.38.200 **PRIVATE PC** TCP [TCP Dup ACK 137#1] quake > paging-port [ACK] Seq=22909 Ack=6081 Win=65535 Len=0
147 26.815408 87.237.38.200 **PRIVATE PC** TCP [TCP Previous segment lost] quake > paging-port [PSH, ACK] Seq=23713 Ack=7197 Win=64419 Len=1460
148 26.815477 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 145#1] paging-port > quake [ACK] Seq=7197 Ack=23581 Win=65535 Len=0
151 26.815714 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 149#1] paging-port > quake [ACK] Seq=7397 Ack=23581 Win=65535 Len=0
153 26.816028 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 149#2] paging-port > quake [ACK] Seq=7397 Ack=23581 Win=65535 Len=0
155 26.817174 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 149#3] paging-port > quake [ACK] Seq=7397 Ack=23581 Win=65535 Len=0
158 26.926323 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 149#4] paging-port > quake [ACK] Seq=7397 Ack=23581 Win=65535 Len=0
159 27.040059 87.237.38.200 **PRIVATE PC** TCP [TCP Retransmission] quake > paging-port [PSH, ACK] Seq=23581 Ack=7397 Win=64219 Len=132
222 29.412849 **PRIVATE PC** 87.237.38.200 TCP [TCP Retransmission] paging-port > quake [PSH, ACK] Seq=8485 Ack=40493 Win=65187 Len=524
|
Gort
Storm Guard Elite
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 20:34:00 -
[37]
A report that Eve loses connection while app(x) does not, while seemingly relevant, can be a subtly misleading observation. IT stuff -- particularly networking on a macro scale -- is way more complex in causation than x=y, y=z, therefore x=z thought modes would imply.
Sometimes, even for people who toil in the particular field every day, root causes remain stubbornly resistant to logic and knowledge until somebody has an "aha!" moment, diddles with a configuration file or replaces a battery, and the world suddenly starts breathing normally again.
I'm going with what CCP says in this instance, though there is some chance that the problem can be ameliorated in some other way. Notwithstanding that they run their stuff on Winblows, they aren't clueless.
G
--
When in doubt, empty the magazine. |
Hungry Hippo
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 20:58:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Anastasiya Makalov
Originally by: Hungry Hippo
Whats the servers IP in London?
87.237.38.200
Isn't that the IP in Iceland? The Server is in London now so it would have a different IP, although they may just forward the traffic from 87.237.38.200 to the proper server IP.
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 21:25:00 -
[39]
Please see this thread.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
Rhyddyn
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 21:26:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Rhyddyn on 20/06/2008 21:30:29
Not sure where the problem is, but My connection issues didn't start till this week, and now its constant. Tracerts are all fine to 87.237.38.200. and per internetpulse.net only place having issues today is savvis, and only in chicago which is down completely, everyone else showing 100%.
Would be nice to hear from CCP on the issue, they know who is suffering the disconnects, I'm sure thier system is logging it.
So CCP, whats your take, what do you see from your end.
Thanks for the link, was posted as I was typing this. Again Many thanks
|
Anastasiya Makalov
GIT-R-DUN
Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 22:29:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Hungry Hippo
Originally by: Anastasiya Makalov
Originally by: Hungry Hippo
Whats the servers IP in London?
87.237.38.200
Isn't that the IP in Iceland? The Server is in London now so it would have a different IP, although they may just forward the traffic from 87.237.38.200 to the proper server IP.
I did multiple searches and perused the forums, that was the only IP i could find for TQ.
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 23:06:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Anastasiya Makalov
Originally by: Hungry Hippo
Originally by: Anastasiya Makalov
Originally by: Hungry Hippo
Whats the servers IP in London?
87.237.38.200
Isn't that the IP in Iceland? The Server is in London now so it would have a different IP, although they may just forward the traffic from 87.237.38.200 to the proper server IP.
I did multiple searches and perused the forums, that was the only IP i could find for TQ.
This is the IP address for TQ (or "CCP Games' London Gaming Cluster").
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson
Software Director
EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
Hosha
Sxxx Bunnys
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 23:29:00 -
[43]
Well, this problem is grate, pritty much cost me a POS, non of my backup could stay online long enought to fight.
Ok plz dnt point this out.
I HAVE BAD SPELLING.
|
danwa
Federation Zone Operations Command
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 00:54:00 -
[44]
From the southern part of the US it goes to a company in Dallas called The Planet - which is one of the largest server company in the US then up to Chicago - NYC - cross the Atlantic to London then into a server in the Netherlands according to dns Tools, a free site.
http://member.dnsstuff.com/pages/tools.php?ptype=free
Use this to lookup about anything you want but remember do the tracert through the command line in your computer then take the IP and trace the route out with the DNS Tools site.
My 2 cents - CCP has increased there membership by 10000 or more daily - before FW there were 26K players about anytime I logged on - now it is as high as 36K.
You got different servers with increased traffic over them - which means lag especially the servers where most of the "action" takes place.
Maybe the servers are not over taxed but lines going to them could be - I was disconnected 3 times in one hour - too much for FW or anything like that. Replacing ships due to lag and disconnects get expensive.
BTW - the "battle lag" is normal - if you ever played any "shooters" then you know to turn off all the extra stuff...but then 100 ship blobs firing at once would lag a Cray Computer.
However the disconnects are due to over taxed lines going to CCP since we didn't have this problem before FW....
Again this is just my opinion. So your milage may vary.
s/D.
|
Dzadhuk
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 05:09:00 -
[45]
Why has this not been posted in the news? Why aren't there regular pop-ups every two hours or so mentioning that there are major internet problems and combat etc may be compromised? I've lost ships needlessly and if I'd just been given some warning and not had to trawl here, it would have been useful.
|
Anastasiya Makalov
GIT-R-DUN
Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 07:58:00 -
[46]
According to internethealth.com, it has been resolved.
|
danwa
Federation Zone Operations Command
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 15:12:00 -
[47]
Fingers, toes, legs all crossed as I log back in for some FW.
|
Veronica Void
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 05:45:00 -
[48]
I DO blame CCP...
If CCP + other companies raised more hell about issues like this, it may get fixed faster. This has been three days now? Let me guess, these so-called technical specialists probably have no clue what is wrong... yea, that must be it. I'm gonna guess and say we're in for an entire MONTH of disconnects.
|
Val Sharen
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:01:00 -
[49]
Well my problem is with EVE only other games are working fine.
EVE is just a disconnectfest at the moment.
tracert eve-online.com
Tracing route to eve-online.com [87.237.39.199]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms
2 40 ms 40 ms 40 ms
3 45 ms 46 ms 40 ms g8-1-rtr01-svcr.epix.net [216.37.197.109]
4 41 ms 50 ms 40 ms 74.40.4.173
5 51 ms 50 ms 49 ms so-6-0-0--0.cr01.mcln.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.
4.118]
6 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms so-0-0-0--0.br01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.
3.130]
7 51 ms 51 ms 50 ms tge6-4.fr1.iad.llnw.net [206.223.115.123]
8 55 ms 50 ms 50 ms ve5.fr4.iad.llnw.net [69.28.171.214]
9 61 ms 57 ms 62 ms tge4-1.fr4.lga.llnw.net [69.28.171.154]
10 140 ms 140 ms 150 ms tge8-1.fr3.ams.llnw.net [69.28.171.85]
11 160 ms 150 ms 150 ms tge7-2.fr3.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.94]
12 151 ms 150 ms 151 ms ve5.fr4.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.138]
13 157 ms 151 ms 150 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
14 151 ms 152 ms 150 ms 87.237.39.199
Trace complete.
Seems the problem is in their provider in france, that is where it is all slowing down.
|
DreadM00n
MoonSoft Systems
Blood and Steel
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:13:00 -
[50]
Wanna know the real reason!?!?!?
BGP.... plain and simple. When you run a DC (data center) you have to setup peering agreements, basically that your traffic outgoing prefers this network over another.... if there are intelligent BGP systems in place the traffic is routed according to load, and availability. It appears that some of the systems in the UK are not accepting traffic from some trans-atlantic networks, or are dropping the traffic, in favor of the networks they have PEERING agreements with.
This is common, I have several servers in the UK, US, and AU and I can tell you that this issue, is related to the DC that eve uses, their peering agreements are de-prioritizing traffic, and dropping it in favor of the traffic they they have peering agreements with. If they would implement a better BGP system then this wouldn't be an issue.... I have connectivity to the DC that my routes takes through the UK to get to eve, and tha6t servers is perfect.... no lag, no disconnects, NO PACKET LOSS
 --DreadM00n |
theteck
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:19:00 -
[51]
Edited by: theteck on 22/06/2008 06:19:53
Edited by: theteck on 22/06/2008 06:18:58
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7805/87237382003ic3.png
my pingplotter to the problem
i see the problem start between llnw.net network ...
between where i ping to 16 in america and where its transfert to london hub ...
|
MercenaryMuffin
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:25:00 -
[52]
I use Cox Cable at home, and Sprint at work, and NEITHER of them work. I get disconnected all the time. I lost connection 10 times in 7 minutes this morning! I'm trying to get things done in this game, and I can barely stay logged in long enough to pick a skill to train.
Sigh.
|
theteck
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 06:30:00 -
[53]
i receive a update
We have received your request and are currently investigating it. As soon as we have a update we will let you know. Thanks for choosing Limelight.
Ian Wolf
Limelight Networks
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:02:00 -
[54]
I am finding it very difficult to believe that it is simply a problem with these two backbones.
Its not just people in North America that are effected. I've talked to a number of people from the EU who are also getting continuous disconnects. Suppose their packets are being routed to North America and then back to the UK?
What is more, after talking to some friends who work at another (nameless) MMO company, I've been told that they've had no problems with any of their servers including servers where most of the traffic is coming from the EU? I guess this just effects the traffic of North American players of EVE-online, and the European players whose traffic is being routed to the US before being sent back to the UK. 
I'm not saying that this problem is with CCP, I'm just saying, stop pretending that because you know a little technobabble that YOU'VE isolated the problem.
-K
|
theteck
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:05:00 -
[55]
check a problem exist and im a network tech and i try to find the problem and send info to where the problem seem to be ...
wait for the answer from llnw for see if the problem its really here
|
nikhan
The Greater Goon
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:10:00 -
[56]
This is lies. They may have had problems with sprint but it is all fine now and eve is still crashing.
|
First Mad
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:14:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Dzadhuk
Why has this not been posted in the news? Why aren't there regular pop-ups every two hours or so mentioning that there are major internet problems and combat etc may be compromised? I've lost ships needlessly and if I'd just been given some warning and not had to trawl here, it would have been useful.
this "internet problem" never made it to the news because it was never a problem. Too many jerks flaming people and saying its their ISP's fault. The "internet problem" that was recently blamed for the disconnects HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Wake up people. That is a common occurrence and is a self resolving system. In order for it to be a problem the people getting disced would also be having problems with OTHER connections to people/servers over the same routes. This is NOT the case. Personally my isp doesn't go through chicago to go oversea's they go through montreal which was uneffected. As for the "2 go down the rest suffer" BS if that was the case then the other ones would ALSO reflect problems on http://internethealthreport.com/ as it shows current state of all connections not just which ones are the "problem" Use your heads people.
Someone has successfully started rumors which have then been expounded upon by various "know nothings" CCP "Apparently" thought that this MAY have been the problem but at this time the evidence obviously points out that it was/is not. At this time i counsel patience while CCP figures out exactly what the downtime changes did to effect the servers IF indeed this is the cause. Be aware that IF it is they are likely to quietly fix it and pass the buck. If it is not directly related to their software (unlikely since its the only software effected on the internet by this "problem")Then they will probably let us know when they have the CORRECT answer this time. |
DreadM00n
MoonSoft Systems
Blood and Steel
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:31:00 -
[58]
Edited by: DreadM00n on 22/06/2008 07:32:55
Edited by: DreadM00n on 22/06/2008 07:32:26
Okay so flame me for technobabble.... the truth
I operate international servers for several international clients, including SAE worldwide, we have a world wide cluster setup. the problem is this
The routers that are in the data center for CCP's servers are not load balancing correctly, so they are dropping certain connections. when you have a DC you setup peering agreements, where you agree that if traffic comes from X provider it will have a HIGHER priority over everything else, this is also the same for outbound traffic. If they dont have a failover (backup route) then non-priorty traffic, coming appearantly from southern europe and midewest / eastern US will be coming in as NON-priority traffic, thus why you can connect for a few minutes.
The problem is at the CCP end, at their data center, multiple traceroutes and ping tests from UK and from US shoa about 9% packaet loss.... 9% of the time the connection is timing out. This means something there is overloaded and there is no backup to correct this issue.
Saying i don't know what i'm talking about and hiding in techno babble insults the fact i worked to REALLY find an answer. If you have access to other dns servers and can change them in your network connections I would look for some in the UK or closer to the west coast...
for me I have tried
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.4
those route through the trans-pacific pipe, and AROUND the problem routers in Lon data center. I hope this helps someone, I don't work for CCP, but i know my way around the network in that area.
Goodluck.....
--DreadM00n |
Glash
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:46:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Akina Nidaras
InternetPulse
The rash of disconnects are NOT CCP's FAULT.
The Savvis and Sprint backbones are both showing below 70% availability. Lower than 90% is considered critical.
CCP, can we get a temp sticky?
You can't guarantee that even if the internet weather sites say it's the case. If they're using icmp to test that path, many routers place icmp on a much lower priority than regular ip traffic packets. Sure there may be issues, but there's also a routing issue within CCP's influence:
5 10 ms 14 ms 12 ms dalsbbrj01-ae0.r2.dl.cox.net [68.1.0.142]
6 12 ms 15 ms 16 ms ve5.fr3.dal.llnw.net [69.28.171.105]
7 28 ms 30 ms 38 ms tge5-3.fr3.ord.llnw.net [69.28.171.198]
8 30 ms 32 ms 29 ms ve6.fr4.ord.llnw.net [69.28.172.42]
9 57 ms 63 ms 57 ms tge11-3.fr3.lga.llnw.net [69.28.171.194]
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 129 ms 129 ms 130 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
13 138 ms 138 ms 138 ms ve5.fr4.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.138]
14 139 ms 139 ms 138 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
15 138 ms 137 ms 138 ms 87.237.38.200
Look at hop 12, see that router? See it pass traffic to ve5.fr4? Where does the packet go then? Back to ccp.ve201. Which in turn passes it to 87.237.38.200. That packet shouldn't pass through the same router interface twice. That indicates a routing issue.
It should look like this:
5 43 ms 11 ms 11 ms dalsbbrj01-ae0.r2.dl.cox.net [68.1.0.142]
6 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms ve5.fr3.dal.llnw.net [69.28.171.105]
7 33 ms 30 ms 32 ms tge5-3.fr3.ord.llnw.net [69.28.171.198]
8 31 ms 30 ms 30 ms ve6.fr4.ord.llnw.net [69.28.172.42]
9 59 ms 58 ms 66 ms tge11-3.fr3.lga.llnw.net [69.28.171.194]
10 129 ms 129 ms 136 ms tge1-2.fr3.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.126]
11 129 ms 128 ms 129 ms ve5.fr4.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.138]
12 129 ms 128 ms 129 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
13 128 ms 129 ms 129 ms 87.237.38.200
|
theteck
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 07:50:00 -
[60]
good one :)
Originally by: Glash
Originally by: Akina Nidaras
InternetPulse
The rash of disconnects are NOT CCP's FAULT.
The Savvis and Sprint backbones are both showing below 70% availability. Lower than 90% is considered critical.
CCP, can we get a temp sticky?
You can't guarantee that even if the internet weather sites say it's the case. If they're using icmp to test that path, many routers place icmp on a much lower priority than regular ip traffic packets. Sure there may be issues, but there's also a routing issue within CCP's influence:
5 10 ms 14 ms 12 ms dalsbbrj01-ae0.r2.dl.cox.net [68.1.0.142]
6 12 ms 15 ms 16 ms ve5.fr3.dal.llnw.net [69.28.171.105]
7 28 ms 30 ms 38 ms tge5-3.fr3.ord.llnw.net [69.28.171.198]
8 30 ms 32 ms 29 ms ve6.fr4.ord.llnw.net [69.28.172.42]
9 57 ms 63 ms 57 ms tge11-3.fr3.lga.llnw.net [69.28.171.194]
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 129 ms 129 ms 130 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
13 138 ms 138 ms 138 ms ve5.fr4.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.138]
14 139 ms 139 ms 138 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
15 138 ms 137 ms 138 ms 87.237.38.200
Look at hop 12, see that router? See it pass traffic to ve5.fr4? Where does the packet go then? Back to ccp.ve201. Which in turn passes it to 87.237.38.200. That packet shouldn't pass through the same router interface twice. That indicates a routing issue.
It should look like this:
5 43 ms 11 ms 11 ms dalsbbrj01-ae0.r2.dl.cox.net [68.1.0.142]
6 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms ve5.fr3.dal.llnw.net [69.28.171.105]
7 33 ms 30 ms 32 ms tge5-3.fr3.ord.llnw.net [69.28.171.198]
8 31 ms 30 ms 30 ms ve6.fr4.ord.llnw.net [69.28.172.42]
9 59 ms 58 ms 66 ms tge11-3.fr3.lga.llnw.net [69.28.171.194]
10 129 ms 129 ms 136 ms tge1-2.fr3.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.126]
11 129 ms 128 ms 129 ms ve5.fr4.lon.llnw.net [69.28.171.138]
12 129 ms 128 ms 129 ms ccp.ve201.fr3.lon.llnw.net [87.248.208.150]
13 128 ms 129 ms 129 ms 87.237.38.200
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |