If the source and destination IPs are public you may want to hide those
That’s not exactly a scientific analysis. Troubleshoot the application, don’t just assume the relatively minor change in latency is at fault (unless you can prove it’s causing issues based on your analysis of the application issues). For example, there could just as easily (and frankly, more likely) be a change in MTU along the path causing issues.
It’s probably a red herring.
thank you very much for the detailed explanation - when my brain can process it will read again, but right now limited capacity.
I have done some QoS as you mentioned.
We are def also seeing packet loss on this route.
Hi there,
This is a traceroute from the application server to the Public Interface of the MX on-site:
^(C:\Windows\system32>tracert 62.*.*.*)
^(Tracing route to nrth-lam-1-s203.network.virginmedia.net [62.*.*.*])
^(over a maximum of 30 hops:)
^(1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 172.*.*.*)
^(2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 212.*.*.*)
^(3 19 ms 12 ms 12 ms 80.*.*.*)
^(4 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 212.*.*.*)
^(5 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 212.*.*.*)
^(6 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms uk-lon03a-ri2-ae-26-0.aorta.net [213.*.*.*])
^(7 * * * Request timed out.)
^(8 * * * Request timed out.)
^(9 * * * Request timed out.)
^(10 52 ms 53 ms 54 ms popl-core-2b-ae14-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.*.*.*])
^(11 * * * Request timed out.)
^(12 53 ms 52 ms 53 ms nrth-lam-1-s203.network.virginmedia.net [62.*.*.*])
^(13 53 ms 53 ms 51 ms nrth-lam-1-s203.network.virginmedia.net [62.*.*.*])
^(Trace complete.)
This is from a client PC to the Public IP of the server:
^(C:\WINDOWS\system32>tracert 212.*.*.*)
^(Tracing route to fg01*** [212.*.*.*])
^(over a maximum of 30 hops:)
^(1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 172.*.*.*)
^(2 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms popl-metnet-4a-pw-431.network.virginmedia.net [62.*.*.*])
^(3 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms popl-core-2b-ae19-3006.network.virginmedia.net [82.*.*.*])
^(4 * * * Request timed out.)
^(5 46 ms 47 ms 48 ms host-62-254-42.174.not-set-yet.virginmedia.net.42.254.62.in-addr.arpa [62.*.*.*])
^(6 43 ms 29 ms 29 ms 213.46.175.46)
^(7 49 ms 50 ms 53 ms xe5-0-0-sar18.LON.router.colt.net [212.*.*.*])
^(8 49 ms 54 ms * xe5-0-0-sar18.LON.router.colt.net [212.*.*.*])
^(9 56 ms 55 ms 54 ms cpeuk_lon005455.ia.colt.net [80.*.*.*])
^(10 * * * Request timed out.)
^(11 * * * Request timed out.)
^(12 * * * Request timed out.)
^(13 * * * Request timed out.)
^(14 * * * Request timed out.)
^(15 * * * Request timed out.)
^(16 * * * Request timed out.)
^(17 * * * Request timed out.)
^(18 * * * Request timed out.)
^(19 * * * Request timed out.)
^(20 * * * Request timed out.)
^(21 * * * Request timed out.)
^(22 * * * Request timed out.)
^(23 * * * Request timed out.)
^(24 * * * Request timed out.)
^(25 * * * Request timed out.)
^(26 * * * Request timed out.)
^(27 * * * Request timed out.)
^(28 * * * Request timed out.)
^(29 * * * Request timed out.)
^(30 * * * Request timed out.)
^(Trace complete.)
Not sure because this client also has a horizon VM which they use when at home and this has direct access to the application server and it works absolutely fine.
Did you check bidirectional throughput? Are they getting a gig up and down?
speed test - 779.7 down and 138.4 up
posted this on another reply
900 / 876.6
second test
So that might suggest it’s a utilisation issue?