4 ms·
If you are on ethernet, I am able to get 1-2ms pings. On same AT&T Fiber Gigabit. Wifi ruins both bandwidth and latency for me.
by hartator 9y ago
If you are on ethernet, I am able to get 1-2ms pings. On same AT&T Fiber Gigabit. Wifi ruins both bandwidth and latency for me.
- cthalupa 9y agoYou should invest in some better wifi gear, it sounds like! On a Unifi nano hd, with moderate signal, my latency only goes up 1ms. Getting ~3.5 ms on wifi to 1.1.1.1, ~2.5ms ethernet
- hartator 9y agoThat's impressive. My AT&T wifi router caps bandwidth at 300mb/s (instead of 1gbs on ethernet) and add 10-20 ms to latency. And this is standing next to it and using 5ghz.
- fudgy73 9y agoOut of curiosity, what is your complete Unifi / network setup?
- cthalupa 9y agoGW/Firewall: USG-XG Switches: 2x US-16-XG, 1x US-48, 2x US-8 APs: 2x Nano HD, 2x AC Pro
- snuxoll 9y agoMan, wish I could ever get pings this low - the link from my VDSL2 model to the local CenturyLink CO alone is 8-15ms depending on the day. Sucks that VDSL2 no longer supports fastpath, not that I could use it on an ADSL line due to bonding anyway :/
- chrissnell 9y agoI'm on Ethernet and fiber all the way. This may have to do more with how AT&T has constructed their fiber in this region. Where do you live? https://chrissnell.com/hn/traceroute-1.1.1.1.png https://chrissnell.com/hn/traceroute-1.1.1.1.png
- nodesocket 9y agoAT&T Fiber Gigabit in Nashville TN. iMac ~ ping 1.1.1.1 PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.688 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.814 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.153 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.752 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.755 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.789 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.876 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.869 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.830 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.387 ms --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.688/0.891/1.387/0.204 ms Pinging 8.8.8.8 averages 8ms. CloudFlare must have a POP here in Nashville?
- chrissnell 9y agoGiven that they're a CDN, I would expect them to. I'm jealous that BNA has AT&T peering but Kansas City has minimal/no peering.
- mxpxrocks10 9y agohaha, I knew that was you when I read Nashville, nodesocket
- dragonwriter 9y agoThat's probably because AT&T is using 1.1.1.1 for something internal and breaking the public internet for it's users: you get a really fast ping on 1.1.1.1, but it's not the 1.1.1.1 you are trying to reach.
- nodesocket 9y agoIs this just speculation or can anybody confirm? traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com (1.1.1.1) 1.117 ms 0.710 ms 0.727 ms
- deleted 9y ago