3 ms·
Thanks for the honesty. Question: I'm in Sydney, Australia, aka the home of the most expensive bandwidth/peering in the world, IIUC :) When I initially pinged
by exikyut 9y ago
Thanks for the honesty.
Question: I'm in Sydney, Australia, aka the home of the most expensive bandwidth/peering in the world, IIUC :)
When I initially pinged 9.9.9.9 (I read "Quad9" and, despite having _just_ woken up, make sense of the nice name) it didn't work. Okay...
And theennnn:
$ ping 9.9.9.9
PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=5006 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=4006 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=3006 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=2007 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=155 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=154 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=154 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=157 ms
[a bunch of skipped lines w/ 155ms avg, 252ms peak]
^C
--- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics ---
33 packets transmitted, 27 received, 18% packet loss, time 32027ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 154.626/655.770/5006.544/1264.522 ms, pipe 6
Ahahaha nope that's not going to work for my primary DNS server. Not at this point.
For reference:
$ ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.92 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=7.22 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=7.17 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=6.69 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=7.78 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=6.94 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=7.01 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=6.77 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=7.40 ms
^C
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 9 received, 10% packet loss, time 9010ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.695/7.105/7.788/0.318 ms
This is a very cool service though and I wish you the best (and hope you get enough resources thrown at you to make a real difference!).
Apparently someone else who tried to email you has found that your email address bounces. I'd like to keep in touch in case I can help with further testing. I also wonder if and how I could get further involved with this - global-scale networking is a very interesting performance optimization target, the kind of thing I find really interesting.
- lokedhs 9y agoFrom Singapore: $ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.04 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.96 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=2.10 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=1.99 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=1.97 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 6016ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.965/2.063/2.185/0.099 ms $ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.23 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.28 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.97 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=2.05 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=2.22 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=1.93 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=2.08 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=2.17 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=10 ttl=60 time=2.05 ms ^C --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9018ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.939/2.121/2.289/0.115 ms It's possible that their APAC mirror is in Singapore.
- josh64 9y agoFrom Perth, Western Australia: $ ping 9.9.9.9 -c 10 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=1.014 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.038 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=1.023 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=0.918 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=0.968 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=1.121 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=0.978 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=1.001 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=1.140 ms --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.918/1.015/1.140/0.067 ms
- exikyut 9y agoHmmmmmmm. Glares at telstra what are you doing to my internet connection (It's 11Mbps and I'm ~2.5km away from the exchange, so the line quality seems alright.)
- psandersen 9y agoMelbourne here with ADSL2, seems to match Google... ~ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=35.810 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=35.669 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=36.421 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=35.021 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=37.837 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=36.547 ms ^C --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 35.021/36.217/37.837/0.882 ms ~ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=36.042 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=67.986 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=36.123 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=35.603 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=43.381 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=37.085 ms ^C --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 35.603/42.703/67.986/11.614 ms
- jlgaddis 9y agoTip: indent two spaces each line of your output for proper formatting