I have had problems access them over the past 48 hours. It appears to be a network problem with their wan connections, probably with their router.

I am growing very impatient with this matter as I am not receiving any response from Michael. :angry: I have contacted thinm via ICQ and posted on their forums on Saturday when I was lucky enough to make contact with it.

Michael, please respond in a timely manner!

Information is available about the latency on our forums page.

Originally posted by Racin' Rob
I have had problems access them over the past 48 hours. It appears to be a network problem with their wan connections, probably with their router.

I am growing very impatient with this matter as I am not receiving any response from Michael. :angry: I have contacted thinm via ICQ and posted on their forums on Saturday when I was lucky enough to make contact with it.

Michael, please respond in a timely manner!


He posted an explanation in the announcement section of the Weinbar forum. http://forums.weinbar.com/

Originally posted by WeinBar
Information is available about the latency on our forums page.
I can not access your forums at all today. "Destination Unreachable". I can sucessfully ping both alter.net and bbnplanet.net points that are just outside your network.
aperianPHX-gw.customer.alter.net
IP Address: 157.130.242.26
and
p0-0.aperian7.bbnplanet.net
IP Address: 4.24.206.22
These are pinging successfully. These were points the showed up previously just outside your network on successful traceroutes.

If you have changed or reconfigured any of your wans, your routing tables may not be correctly configured. I have not been able to access any Weinbar resources today! (just weinbar resources)

I finally have been able to access Weinbar. the packet loss and latency are still what they were the past couple of days, but at least I can get my email after serveral time outs.

Hopefuly things will be back to the normal good quality that Weinbar has had in the past.

Originally posted by Racin' Rob

I can not access your forums at all today. ..



They aren't "my" forums, they are Weinbar's forums. We share nothing more than the same first name.

I checked the forums when I posted my message, and just now. I was able to access them both times without a problem.

Here is a current traceroute:



06/24/01 11:42:40 Spade Log
06/24/01 11:42:45 Fast traceroute http://forums.weinbar.com/
Trace http://forums.weinbar.com/ (216.139.227.15) ...

1 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 0ms 0ms 0ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
2 216.238.xxx.xxx 16ms 16ms 16ms TTL: 0 (gateway.113.sn.ct.dsl.thebiz.net ok)
3 209.150.0.1 15ms 15ms 16ms TTL: 0 (czcore.cyberzone.net ok)
4 209.66.159.201 16ms 16ms 15ms TTL: 0 (hfd3-cyberzone.pp.connix.net ok)
5 137.39.148.21 16ms 16ms 16ms TTL: 0 (901.Hssi5-0-0.GW1.HAR1.ALTER.NET bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative])
6 152.63.26.62 15ms 15ms 15ms TTL: 0 (564.ATM2-0.XR2.NYC1.ALTER.NET ok)
7 152.63.18.202 16ms 16ms 31ms TTL: 0 (182.at-1-0-0.XR2.NYC9.ALTER.NET ok)
8 152.63.23.141 15ms 32ms 16ms TTL: 0 (0.so-2-1-0.XL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET ok)
9 152.63.18.221 16ms 15ms 16ms TTL: 0 (POS7-0.BR1.NYC9.ALTER.NET ok)
10 4.0.6.141 16ms 31ms 15ms TTL: 0 (a6-0-1.nycmny1-ba1.bbnplanet.net ok)
11 4.24.6.229 31ms 31ms 31ms TTL: 0 (p7-0.nycmny1-br1.bbnplanet.net ok)
12 4.24.10.81 16ms 16ms 16ms TTL: 0 (p5-0.nycmny1-nbr1.bbnplanet.net ok)
13 4.24.10.210 16ms 16ms 15ms TTL: 0 (p15-0.nycmny1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net ok)
14 4.24.10.177 15ms 31ms 16ms TTL: 0 (p9-0.phlapa1-br1.bbnplanet.net ok)
15 4.24.10.182 47ms 47ms 46ms TTL: 0 (p9-0.iplvin1-br1.bbnplanet.net ok)
16 4.24.10.154 46ms 47ms 47ms TTL: 0 (p15-0.iplvin1-br2.bbnplanet.net ok)
17 4.24.10.213 78ms 78ms 78ms TTL: 0 (p9-0.crtntx1-br1.bbnplanet.net ok)
18 4.24.10.114 63ms 63ms 62ms TTL: 0 (p15-0.crtntx1-br2.bbnplanet.net ok)
19 4.24.5.61 93ms 93ms 94ms TTL: 0 (p9-0.lsanca2-br2.bbnplanet.net ok)
20 4.24.5.202 94ms 94ms 94ms TTL: 0 (p1-0.lsanca1-cr9.bbnplanet.net ok)
21 4.24.206.22 110ms 110ms 109ms TTL: 0 (p0-0.aperian7.bbnplanet.net ok)
22 216.139.227.15 94ms 93ms 94ms TTL:244 (No rDNS)

I can do that too, and get packet loss. As indicated above, I can now access it, but it still has the packet loss and latency as it has had over the past few days. A traceroute will have a hard time displaying intermittent packet loss. You must also use ping with more than 5 packets (I use 20) to display intermittent packet loss more accurately.



Traceroute Results

1 x.x.x.x ? 20
2 x.x.x.x ? 10
3 x.x.x.x x 20
4 198.164.200.210 alnb-dr02-g3-0.aliant.ca 30
5 142.166.181.13 alnb-cr02-g3-0.aliant.ca 20
6 206.108.111.173 dis11-montreal02-pos2-0.in.bellnexxia.net 30
7 206.108.99.169 core1-montreal02-pos10-0.in.bellnexxia.net 30
8 206.108.107.58 bx2-montreal02-pos1-0.in.bellnexxia.net 30
9 207.45.204.45 if-8-0.core2.Montreal.Teleglobe.net 30
10 207.45.222.109 if-0-0.core3.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 51
11 64.86.83.162 if-3-0.core1.Washington.Teleglobe.net 50
12 207.45.213.174 Teleglobe.net 50
13 4.24.8.121 so-3-1-0.washdc3-nbr2.bbnplanet.net 60
14 4.24.10.186 p9-0.phlapa1-br2.bbnplanet.net 50
15 4.24.10.89 p15-0.phlapa1-br1.bbnplanet.net 50
16 4.24.10.182 p9-0.iplvin1-br1.bbnplanet.net 60
17 4.24.10.154 p15-0.iplvin1-br2.bbnplanet.net 60
18 4.24.10.213 p9-0.crtntx1-br1.bbnplanet.net 90
19 4.24.10.114 p15-0.crtntx1-br2.bbnplanet.net 91
20 4.24.5.61 p9-0.lsanca2-br2.bbnplanet.net 110
21 4.24.5.202 p1-0.lsanca1-cr9.bbnplanet.net 110
22 * * * No packet received from this hop.
23 * * * No packet received from this hop.
24 * * * No packet received from this hop.
25 * * * No packet received from this hop.
26 * * * No packet received from this hop.
27 * * * No packet received from this hop.
28 * * * No packet received from this hop.
29 * * * No packet received from this hop.
30 * * * No packet received from this hop.

TraceRoute Statistics: 32 data bytes to forums.weinbar.com [216.139.227.15]
Start Time: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:13:14
*Target not reached.
30 packets transmitted, 21 packets received, 30% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 10/50/110


Ping Results

0 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
1 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
2 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
3 216.139.227.15 32 121 234 0:0 Echo Reply
4 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
5 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
6 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
7 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
8 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
9 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
10 216.139.227.15 32 121 234 0:0 Echo Reply
11 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
12 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
13 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
14 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
15 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
16 216.139.227.15 32 120 234 0:0 Echo Reply
17 * * * * No packet received from target.
18 * * * * No packet received from target.
19 * * * * No packet received from target.

Pinging forums.weinbar.com [216.139.227.15] with 32 data bytes
Start Time: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:11:54
20 packets transmitted, 17 packets received, 15% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 120/120/121

Originally posted by Racin' Rob
I can do that too, and get packet loss. As indicated above, I can now access it, but it still has the packet loss and latency as it has had over the past few days. ...



Soooo... did ya actually visit the forum to see why Wienbar had to say about the problem?

Originally posted by Racin' Rob
I can do that too, and get packet loss. As indicated above, I can now access it, but it still has the packet loss and latency as it has had over the past few days. A traceroute will have a hard time displaying intermittent packet loss. You must also use ping with more than 5 packets (I use 20) to display intermittent packet loss more accurately.





Tried a ping:


PING forums.weinbar.com (216.139.227.15): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=108.926 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=1 ttl=245 time=109.414 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=2 ttl=245 time=101.232 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=3 ttl=245 time=106.646 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=4 ttl=245 time=102.760 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=7 ttl=245 time=111.750 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=8 ttl=245 time=101.092 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=9 ttl=245 time=107.248 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=10 ttl=245 time=104.413 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=11 ttl=245 time=108.703 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=12 ttl=245 time=100.658 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=13 ttl=245 time=102.380 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=14 ttl=245 time=101.570 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=17 ttl=245 time=102.126 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=18 ttl=245 time=104.062 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=19 ttl=245 time=101.567 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=20 ttl=245 time=103.203 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=21 ttl=245 time=104.812 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=22 ttl=245 time=113.415 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=23 ttl=245 time=101.579 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=24 ttl=245 time=110.014 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=25 ttl=245 time=101.559 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=26 ttl=245 time=106.328 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=27 ttl=245 time=100.084 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=28 ttl=245 time=109.933 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=29 ttl=245 time=102.781 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=30 ttl=245 time=101.175 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=31 ttl=245 time=110.014 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=32 ttl=245 time=109.385 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=33 ttl=245 time=102.373 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=34 ttl=245 time=102.216 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=35 ttl=245 time=105.251 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=36 ttl=245 time=106.053 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=37 ttl=245 time=105.945 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=38 ttl=245 time=108.153 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=39 ttl=245 time=109.385 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=40 ttl=245 time=103.572 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=41 ttl=245 time=102.262 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=42 ttl=245 time=110.014 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=43 ttl=245 time=101.956 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=44 ttl=245 time=105.321 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=45 ttl=245 time=101.912 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=46 ttl=245 time=110.013 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=47 ttl=245 time=100.457 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=48 ttl=245 time=120.024 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=49 ttl=245 time=104.526 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=50 ttl=245 time=108.110 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=51 ttl=245 time=109.886 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=54 ttl=245 time=102.800 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=55 ttl=245 time=103.100 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=58 ttl=245 time=109.389 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=59 ttl=245 time=106.506 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=60 ttl=245 time=103.885 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=61 ttl=245 time=101.350 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=62 ttl=245 time=102.949 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=63 ttl=245 time=105.049 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=64 ttl=245 time=102.914 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=67 ttl=245 time=104.616 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=68 ttl=245 time=112.027 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=69 ttl=245 time=102.786 ms
64 bytes from 216.139.227.15: icmp_seq=70 ttl=245 time=102.897 ms
--- forums.weinbar.com ping statistics ---
72 packets transmitted, 61 packets received, 15% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 100.084/105.352/120.024/3.951 ms

Originally posted by Mike the newbie
Soooo... did ya actually visit the forum to see why Wienbar had to say about the problem?
Yes I did...it really didn't say anything I didn't already know or assume, other than the no ETA. That's why I said:
]Originally posted by Racin' Rob
Hopefuly things will be back to the normal good quality that Weinbar has had in the past.

I see your Ping results were the same as mine - 15% packet loss and similar latency.

Originally posted by Racin' Rob

I see your Ping results were the same as mine - 15% packet loss and similar latency.


Yup, that's why I posted 'em, to confirm your measurements.