iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 100M

tiibor · Oct 4, 2016

Once again, many! Thanks to! for your detailed answer with links. I hope that with all this information I can find a solution with Swisscom support.

As far as I remember, the XBOX One at MTU has the value 1480. Maybe something is really not harmonizing here.

I remember that for a while I had no problems playing online. Unfortunately, I don’t know exactly when this happened. Roughly speaking, about 1 month during the period from October to February, unfortunately I have no idea when exactly it was (at that time it was still via DSL)

I hope that I can find a solution with Swisscom, otherwise I now have a few things (UDP throttling and MTU) which I will definitely check in advance with the support of my new provider. I hope this isn’t a general fiber problem, but I can’t imagine it being.

(The worst case scenario turns out that none of this had any influence at all and that in the end Micorosoft and EA with their servers are the cause, but at the moment I still have “hope”).

GrandDixence · Oct 4, 2016

It looks like Swisscom is using PPPoE for the fiber optic connection:

[http://documents.swisscom.com/product/1000260-Connectivity\_Geraete\_/Documents/ Specifications/Centro_Business_PPPoE_Passthrough-de.pdf](http://documents.swisscom.com/product/ 1000260-Connectivity_Geraete_/Documents/ Specifications/Centro_Business_PPPoE_Passthrough-de.pdf)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPP_over_Ethernet

According to the IPerf(3) measurements, the use of PPPoE leads to massive packet losses with large UDP packets (> approx. 1400 bytes). The following offers a solution to the “big UDP packet problem”:

a) Use of a fiber optic connection from a third party without the need for a router

b) OR the implementation of a PPPoE-free fiber optic connection: removal of the Swisscom Internet box and the use of a media converter copper Ethernet <-> fiber optic Ethernet

[https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Archiv-Internet/Sehr-starkes-UDP-throttling-im-Netz/td-p/397658](https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Archiv- Internet/Very-strong-UDP-throttling-in-the-network/td-p/397658)

[https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Diskussionen-%C3%BCber-das-Thema/Lancom-Glas Fiber-Router-%C3%BCber-Swisscom-Bluewin-m%C3%B6glich/m-p/448171#M1 056](https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Diskussionen-%C3%BCber-das-Thema/Lancom-Glasfibro-Router-%C3%BCber-Swisscom-Bluewin-m%C3%B6glich/m-p/448171 #M1056)

I doubt that large UDP packets > 1400 bytes are used for the games and therefore no measure a) or b) is necessary. The only way to be certain here is to analyze the network traffic recordings with Wireshark:

https://www.wireshark.org/

If the IPerf(3) measurements with UDP packets < 1400 bytes in the downstream direction prove that the fiber optic connection is functioning properly (packet loss rate < 0.01% and jitter < 1 millisecond) AND the games do not use UDP packets > 1400 bytes, then this is the case The ball is back in the court of the network operator (Swisscom), their peering partners and the game server operators.

Tux0ne · Oct 4, 2016

@GrandDixence

FTTH still has a VLAN on it. That’s why there should actually be 4 bytes left.

DHCP is used for private customers.

So theoretically the maximum MTU there is 1496

I have a PPPoE termination over FTTH and VLAN. I would have 1492. Effectively but only 1488 because of the VLAN.

That’s how it is with me.

But no one from Swisscom has ever confirmed this 😉 I just said that you should actually adapt the config sheets for firewalls accordingly.

It would be cool for someone to test the effective MTU on their FTTH private customer connection.

http://www.tp-link.com/en/article/?faqid=190

akai · Oct 4, 2016

tiibor

I wanted you to just copy and paste and find out for yourself. That it is just a measurement error. My colleague above has already explained why -l x is so important in UDP.

Well I’m just with a small one. Bandwidth blessed. But I think with fine tuning of the values -b and -l you will now reach the max. Unless there really is an L1 problem on site. But based on your description this can be ruled out.

Because the traceroute/MTR to easo.ea.com is also OK, i.e. no routing problem is visible. Can this definitely be ruled out?

Also that you didn’t write that everything with the box is slow. But rather just a game in particular. Indicates a problem with the game server itself! Due to the lack of hardware, I can’t say anything precise about it.

Now I would create another trouble ticket with all the new findings from the game provider and see if there is more to come this time. If you write again everything is ok. ask how you can check this yourself?

iperf3 -u -R -c ping.online.net -b 20M

[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.01 sec 192 KBytes 1.56 Mbits/sec 10,698 ms 252/276 (91%)
[ 4] 1.01-2.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 5,897 ms 296/306 (97%)
[ 4] 2.01-3.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 3,433 ms 295/305 (97%)
[ 4] 3.01-4.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 654 Kbits/sec 2,143 ms 295/305 (97%)
[ 4] 4.01-5.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 656 Kbits/sec 1,435 ms 295/305 (97%)
[ 4] 5.01-6.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 0.986 ms 295/305 (97%)
[ 4] 6.01-7.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 0.741 ms 295/305 (97%)
[ 4] 7.01-8.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 0.810 ms 296/306 (97%)
[ 4] 8.01-9.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 0.855 ms 295/305 (97%)
[ 4] 9.01-10.01 sec 80.0 KBytes 655 Kbits/sec 0.569 ms 295/305 (97%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 23.8 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.569 ms 2909/3023 (96%)
[ 4] Sent 3023 datagrams

iperf Done.

iperf3 -u -R -c ping.online.net -b 20M -l 1420

[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.31 MBytes 11.0 Mbits/sec 0.848 ms 506/1477 (34%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.24 MBytes 10.4 Mbits/sec 0.795 ms 895/1811 (49%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.24 MBytes 10.4 Mbits/sec 6,828 ms 903/1822 (50%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.4 Mbits/sec 0.730 ms 829/1749 (47%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.5 Mbits/sec 0.829 ms 789/1709 (46%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.5 Mbits/sec 0.831 ms 837/1757 (48%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.4 Mbits/sec 0.764 ms 863/1783 (48%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.5 Mbits/sec 0.707 ms 878/1798 (49%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.5 Mbits/sec 0.783 ms 806/1726 (47%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.4 Mbits/sec 0.772 ms 833/1753 (48%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 23.8 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 1,481 ms 8259/17606 (47%)
[ 4] Sent 17606 datagrams

Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
….
14. easo.ea.com 0.0% 310 111.7 111.7 109.9 149.5 2.8

CHnuschti · Oct 5, 2016

@Tux0ne wrote:

It would be cool for someone to test the effective MTU on their FTTH private customer connection.

http://www.tp-link.com/en/article/?faqid=190

With the test according to the link as an iway.ch private customer (via DHCP) fiber optic network EWZ I get 1472, so the optimal value is 1472+28= MTU 1500.? Whatever that’s good for…

Tux0ne · Oct 5, 2016

Then you have no.11q tagging on the ew Zürinet and DHCP as access technology, so 1500 is good for IPv4.

But I’m actually asking about FTTH Swisscom customers or one on the BBCS-F network.

There you have.11q tagging and the MTU can’t be 1500.

So just be aware of it when you get into problems. Not even related to this thread but in general.

GrandDixence · Oct 5, 2016

@Tux0ne wrote:

@GrandDixence

FTTH still has a VLAN on it. That’s why there should actually be 4 bytes left.

Theoretically the maximum MTU there is 1496

The statement is not entirely correct: When using VLAN according to IEEE 802.1Q over Ethernet, the maximum amount of user data remains 1500 bytes and thus the MTU remains at 1500 bytes. VLAN according to IEEE 802.1Q over Ethernet has no influence on the MTU value. When using VLAN, the Ethernet frame simply becomes 4 bytes larger (1522 bytes instead of 1518 bytes):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Local_Area_Network

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1Q

Only when using “double tagging” does the MTU decrease to 1496 when using VLAN according to IEEE 802.1Q over Ethernet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1Q

[http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/8021q/17056-741-4.html#frame2](http://www.cisco.com/c/ en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/8021q/17056-741-4.html#frame2)

XT · Oct 5, 2016

MTU Test
Fiber DHCP Privatabo

http://www.letmecheck.it/mtu-test.php

The maximum MTU size is: 1500

This post is in English

Tux0ne · Oct 6, 2016

@GrandDixence

Yes, you’re right. I can’t transfer this to RES connections. I made a mistake in my thinking.

When I get the chance, I’ll take a look at why I have a maximum of 1488 in my setup (my KMU Office Dual Session WAN PPPoE passthrough).

The documentation simply doesn’t exist in this regard. You have to see for yourself where you stay 😉

tiibor · Oct 6, 2016

Hi @akai

Thank you for your answer and explanation. Have you run it with these parameters (setup: Only PC directly on the router as the only device):

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.107 port 57470 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 9.00 MBytes 75.5 Mbits/sec 0.012 ms 7966/26392 (30%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 8.16 MBytes 68.5 Mbits/sec 0.011 ms 6584/23303 (28%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.29 MBytes 78.0 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 4195/23226 (18%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.23 MBytes 77.4 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 4247/23149 (18%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 8.82 MBytes 74.0 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 5382/23451 (23%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.71 MBytes 81.4 Mbits/sec 0.005 ms 3314/23197 (14%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.35 MBytes 78.4 Mbits/sec 0.008 ms 3859/23006 (17%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 3707/23221 (16%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.25 MBytes 77.6 Mbits/sec 0.008 ms 4206/23160 (18%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.65 MBytes 80.9 Mbits/sec 0.008 ms 3523/23277 (15%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 115 MBytes 96.7 Mbits/sec 0.005 ms 46983/236021 (20%)
[ 4] Sent 236021 datagrams

iperf Done.

Sometimes, however, I also had a strange behavior like this one (but it could also be in the server):

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.107 port 59573 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 50 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 51 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 52 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 53 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 54 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 55 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 56 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 57 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 58 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 59 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 66
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.01 sec 6.43 MBytes 53.2 Mbits/sec 0.011 ms 12675/25830 (49%)
[ 4] 1.01-2.00 sec 5.10 MBytes 43.4 Mbits/sec 0.019 ms 12430/22881 (54%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 5.09 MBytes 42.5 Mbits/sec 0.012 ms 11220/21650 (52%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 6.48 MBytes 54.6 Mbits/sec 0.017 ms 11783/25056 (47%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.01 sec 5.81 MBytes 48.2 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 11317/23212 (49%)
[ 4] 5.01-6.01 sec 4.56 MBytes 38.3 Mbits/sec 0.014 ms 13383/22728 (59%)
[ 4] 6.01-7.01 sec 5.16 MBytes 43.3 Mbits/sec 0.135 ms 13060/23630 (55%)
[ 4] 7.01-8.00 sec 6.07 MBytes 51.2 Mbits/sec 0.290 ms 10585/23018 (46%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 4.36 MBytes 36.7 Mbits/sec 0.016 ms 13178/22105 (60%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 6.34 MBytes 53.0 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 11006/23995 (46%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 115 MBytes 96.1 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 120637/234105 (52%)
[ 4] Sent 234105 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 10 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what exactly it looks like with the packages and their size when playing online via XBOX One and Fifa Ultimate. Yesterday evening I tried again, and then I noticed that the game freezes in certain situations more than in others. Possibly these are situations in which more traffic comes, or larger packages, no idea.

I’ll see what the support says. Possibly there are even more possibilities to test. Also, my signal levels still seem strange. If all this does not help, I will test another provider in parallel. If it works without problems with this other provider, I can at least “show” Swisscom that it is your fault. If it doesn’t help, I give up. (I’ll have to check, maybe I can test a different provider from a neighbor via WLan in advance, WLAN is not ideal, but would be interesting)

Edit: Why is my browser’s spell checker not active in this forum? Haven’t had this problem anywhere else…

tiibor · Oct 6, 2016

@Tux0ne

I tested MTU, via your link I get to 1472: i.e. 1500. Using the link from @XT I get to “The maximum MTU size for 178.199.89.xxx is: 1500”

But that may have already been resolved anyway.

@GrandDixence

“If the IPerf(3) measurements with UDP packets < 1400 bytes in the downstream direction prove that the fiber optic connection is functioning properly (packet loss rate < 0.01% and jitter < 1 millisecond)”

I think jitter is fine, but packet loss rate is not:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.107 port 60488 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 58 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 59 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 60 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 61 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 62 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 63 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 64 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 65 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 66 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 67 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 68 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 69 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 70 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 71 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 72 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 73 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 74 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 75 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 76 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 77 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 78 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 79 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 80 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 81 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.46 MBytes 71.0 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 8660/25971 (33%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.35 MBytes 78.5 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 4052/23208 (17%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 10.1 MBytes 84.5 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 2544/23179 (11%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.69 MBytes 81.2 Mbits/sec 0.015 ms 3218/23063 (14%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.84 MBytes 82.5 Mbits/sec 0.012 ms 3136/23288 (13%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.08 MBytes 76.2 Mbits/sec 0.021 ms 4569/23171 (20%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.78 MBytes 82.0 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 3125/23146 (14%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.69 MBytes 81.2 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 3688/23527 (16%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.44 MBytes 79.2 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 3598/22923 (16%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.52 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 3748/23244 (16%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 115 MBytes 96.4 Mbits/sec 0.005 ms 40338/235379 (17%)
[ 4] Sent 235379 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 24 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

“AND the games don’t use UDP packets > 1400 bytes, then the ball is back in the court of the network operator (Swisscom), their peering partners and the game server operators.”

Unfortunately I have no idea. But if I look at the behavior in the game, it’s not always bad. Is it possible that it only appears on moves where more information may flow?

See two videos (are links to OneDrive):

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AkNoK6Dl-AMqgRJ8yLZHuT9Siu-c

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AkNoK6Dl-AMqgRHPredIY2j4JBuA (clearly at second ~ 16 in this video)

You can see in these videos that the jerking is sometimes quite extreme. When gaming, this can best be described as input lag. It feels like everything is too sluggish, sometimes to the point of being “externally controlled”.

GrandDixence · Oct 6, 2016

tiibor

tiibor schrieb:

Ich denke Jitter ist in Ordnung, Paketverlustrate hingegen nicht:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.107 port 60488 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 58 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 59 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 60 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 61 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 62 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 63 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 64 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 65 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 66 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 109
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 67 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 68 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 69 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 70 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 71 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 72 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 73 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 74 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 75 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 76 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 77 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 78 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 79 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 80 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 81 and received packet = 0 AND SP = 127
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.46 MBytes 71.0 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 8660/25971 (33%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.35 MBytes 78.5 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 4052/23208 (17%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 10.1 MBytes 84.5 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 2544/23179 (11%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.69 MBytes 81.2 Mbits/sec 0.015 ms 3218/23063 (14%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.84 MBytes 82.5 Mbits/sec 0.012 ms 3136/23288 (13%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.08 MBytes 76.2 Mbits/sec 0.021 ms 4569/23171 (20%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.78 MBytes 82.0 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 3125/23146 (14%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.69 MBytes 81.2 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 3688/23527 (16%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.44 MBytes 79.2 Mbits/sec 0.010 ms 3598/22923 (16%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.52 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 3748/23244 (16%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 115 MBytes 96.4 Mbits/sec 0.005 ms 40338/235379 (17%)
[ 4] Sent 235379 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 24 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

Ja, die Paketverlustrate ist für UDP-Pakete mit einer Nutdatengrösse von 512 Byte viel zu hoch.

Zudem sind 24 UDP-Pakete in der falschen Reihenfolge empfangen worden (out-of-order), was ein Zeichen für eine überlastete Netzwerkkomponente ist.

Wie bereits mitgeteilt, lässt sich mit Wireshark relativ schnell und einfach die vom Game verwendete UDP-Paketgrösse feststellen:

Hier ein Beispiel, wie die IPerf3-Messung mit UDP-Paketen in Downstream-Richtung aussehen sollte (PC direkt an EuroDOCSIS-Kabelmodem):

UDP-Messung des Downstream/Download (100 MBit/s)

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 100M

Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 77.57.166.140 port 40131 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec 0.719 ms 0/1437 (0%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.703 ms 0/1526 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.688 ms 0/1527 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 99.9 Mbits/sec 0.704 ms 0/1524 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.704 ms 0/1527 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.712 ms 0/1526 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.670 ms 0/1526 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 99.9 Mbits/sec 0.699 ms 0/1525 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.709 ms 0/1527 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.707 ms 0/1526 (0%)

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 119 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.613 ms 0/15262 (0%)
[ 4] Sent 15262 datagrams

iperf Done.

This post is in English

GrandDixence · Oct 7, 2016

Is the entire home network compatible with Gigabit Ethernet (1000 MBit/s)? Are all Ethernet cables in the home network labeled “Cat. 5e” or higher (e.g. “Cat. 6” or “Cat. 7”)? Are all network components in the home network (e.g. switch) Gigabit Ethernet compatible? Does Windows indicate the use of Gigabit Ethernet mode (1000 MBit/s) on the measurement PC?

[https://www.swisscom.ch/de/privatkunden/hilfe/loesung/heimnetzwerk-zu-langsam.html](https://www.swisscom.ch/de/privatkunden/hilfe/loesung/heimnetzwerk-zu- slow.html)

[https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Diskussionen-%C3%BCber-Computer/Ethernet-Problem/td-p/399781](https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Diskussionen-%C3% BCber computer/Ethernet problem/td-p/399781)

tiibor · Oct 7, 2016

Hello @GrandDixence

I’ll test it with “Wireshark” this weekend and see what comes out.

Regarding the questions from the last answer, in short: the results from my last answer were from a setup in which my PC was connected directly to the Internet Box Plus. Cable is/was the thin “makeshift cable” from Swisscom. So my PC shows 1.0 Gbit/s at “transfer rate”.

“Is the entire home network suitable for Gigabit Ethernet (1000 MBit/s)?”

Unfortunately not normally. The cable from the Internet box to the Gigabit switch can apparently only do 100MBit/s. BUT: The XBOX is connected directly to the Internet box and a different “flying” cable that can handle 1000 MBit/s was used for the tests.

"Are all Ethernet cables in the home network marked “Cat. 5e” or higher (e.g. “Cat. 6” or “Cat. 7”)?"

With the exception above, yes.

“Are all network components in the home network (e.g. switch) Gigabit Ethernet compatible?”

Yes

“Does Windows indicate the use of Gigabit Ethernet mode (1000 MBit/s) on the measurement PC?”

Yes

To be on the safe side, I will test the test with smaller UDP packets _later via laptop directly on the Internet box with a different/shorter cable.

Edit 10:29: Had to test it over the weekend, unfortunately I can’t get around to it today.

tiibor · Oct 9, 2016

Hallo @GrandDixence

Habe nun heute nochmals via Laptop direkt an der Internet Box Plus getestet, sieht leider nicht besser aus:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.124 port 56039 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 58 and received packet = 68 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 59 and received packet = 68 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 60 and received packet = 68 AND SP = 4
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.01 sec 8.28 MBytes 68.5 Mbits/sec 0.014 ms 9699/26661 (36%)
[ 4] 1.01-2.01 sec 6.95 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec 0.982 ms 8429/22669 (37%)
[ 4] 2.01-3.01 sec 7.45 MBytes 62.6 Mbits/sec 0.983 ms 8299/23549 (35%)
[ 4] 3.01-4.01 sec 8.38 MBytes 70.4 Mbits/sec 0.007 ms 6431/23600 (27%)
[ 4] 4.01-5.01 sec 7.78 MBytes 65.4 Mbits/sec 0.982 ms 6495/22431 (29%)
[ 4] 5.01-6.01 sec 7.86 MBytes 66.0 Mbits/sec 0.057 ms 7011/23105 (30%)
[ 4] 6.01-7.00 sec 8.10 MBytes 68.0 Mbits/sec 1.919 ms 6580/23161 (28%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.01 sec 7.43 MBytes 61.9 Mbits/sec 0.988 ms 8615/23822 (36%)
[ 4] 8.01-9.01 sec 7.72 MBytes 64.8 Mbits/sec 0.005 ms 6764/22566 (30%)
[ 4] 9.01-10.01 sec 8.68 MBytes 72.9 Mbits/sec 0.996 ms 6077/23853 (25%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 116 MBytes 96.9 Mbits/sec 0.017 ms 74400/235726 (32%)
[ 4] Sent 235726 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 3 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

Werde nun kurz die Internet Box Plus neustarten, und dann nochmals testen (auch nochmals mit einem anderen Kabel und an einem anderen Port).

Add 16:05 Uhr:

Also, auch mit anderen Kabeln und nach Neustart der Internet Box das gleiche Verhalten:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.124 port 62312 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 50 and received packet = 70 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 51 and received packet = 70 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 52 and received packet = 70 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 53 and received packet = 80 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 54 and received packet = 80 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 55 and received packet = 80 AND SP = 4
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 5.02 MBytes 42.1 Mbits/sec 0.072 ms 16312/26584 (61%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 4.66 MBytes 39.1 Mbits/sec 0.108 ms 13278/22830 (58%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 5.38 MBytes 45.2 Mbits/sec 0.072 ms 13279/24307 (55%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 6.61 MBytes 55.5 Mbits/sec 0.069 ms 9612/23151 (42%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 6.24 MBytes 52.3 Mbits/sec 0.082 ms 10006/22777 (44%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 6.74 MBytes 56.6 Mbits/sec 0.078 ms 9071/22882 (40%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 5.22 MBytes 43.8 Mbits/sec 0.071 ms 12095/22784 (53%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 3.66 MBytes 30.7 Mbits/sec 0.073 ms 16249/23740 (68%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 5.09 MBytes 42.7 Mbits/sec 0.073 ms 12365/22791 (54%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 4.89 MBytes 41.0 Mbits/sec 0.071 ms 13045/23055 (57%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 116 MBytes 97.0 Mbits/sec 0.079 ms 127034/236911 (54%)
[ 4] Sent 236911 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 6 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

Mit den Out of Order Paketen war es teilweise noch einiges schlimmer (Also noch mehr out of order Einträge). Ich versuche mich nun mal noch mit Wireshark

This post is in English

tiibor · Oct 9, 2016

Auch wenn ich andere Einstellungen teste wirds leider nicht besser:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 256
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 116 MBytes 97.1 Mbits/sec 0.017 ms 278616/474041 (59%)
[ 4] Sent 474041 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 35 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 256
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.124 port 65158 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 50 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 51 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 52 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 53 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 54 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 55 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 56 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 57 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 58 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 59 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 60 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 61 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 62 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 63 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 64 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 65 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 66 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 67 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 68 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 69 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 70 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 71 and received packet = 111 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 72 and received packet = 111 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 73 and received packet = 111 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 74 and received packet = 111 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 75 and received packet = 111 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 76 and received packet = 111 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 77 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 78 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 79 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 80 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 81 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 82 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 83 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 84 and received packet = 143 AND SP = 4
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 4.60 MBytes 38.6 Mbits/sec 0.100 ms 33366/52188 (64%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 4.76 MBytes 40.0 Mbits/sec 0.079 ms 26756/46273 (58%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 4.73 MBytes 39.7 Mbits/sec 0.008 ms 27275/46635 (58%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 5.10 MBytes 42.7 Mbits/sec 0.075 ms 24986/45856 (54%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 5.42 MBytes 45.5 Mbits/sec 0.155 ms 24957/47153 (53%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 5.08 MBytes 42.6 Mbits/sec 0.254 ms 25541/46335 (55%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 4.50 MBytes 37.7 Mbits/sec 0.069 ms 27184/45616 (60%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 4.47 MBytes 37.5 Mbits/sec 0.071 ms 28865/47163 (61%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 4.32 MBytes 36.2 Mbits/sec 0.070 ms 27982/45681 (61%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 4.41 MBytes 37.0 Mbits/sec 0.030 ms 27383/45458 (60%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 116 MBytes 97.1 Mbits/sec 0.017 ms 278616/474041 (59%)
[ 4] Sent 474041 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 35 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

und:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 100M -l 128
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 123 MBytes 103 Mbits/sec 16.775 ms 880105/1006278 (87%)
[ 4] Sent 1006278 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 35 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 100M -l 128
Connecting to host debit.k-net.fr, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host debit.k-net.fr is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.124 port 50851 connected to 178.250.209.22 port 5201
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 50 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 51 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 52 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 53 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 54 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 55 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 56 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 57 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 58 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 59 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 60 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 61 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 62 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 63 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 64 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 65 and received packet = 96 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 66 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 67 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 68 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 69 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 70 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 71 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 72 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 73 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 74 and received packet = 103 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 75 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 76 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 77 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 78 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 79 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 80 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 81 and received packet = 109 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 82 and received packet = 112 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 83 and received packet = 112 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 84 and received packet = 112 AND SP = 4
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.49 MBytes 20.9 Mbits/sec 0.009 ms 96330/116712 (83%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.82 MBytes 15.3 Mbits/sec 0.038 ms 67787/82700 (82%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.13 sec 2.15 MBytes 16.0 Mbits/sec 0.052 ms 81814/99460 (82%)
[ 4] 3.13-4.00 sec 2.15 MBytes 20.7 Mbits/sec 0.015 ms 92615/110215 (84%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 2.56 MBytes 21.5 Mbits/sec 0.474 ms 69331/90333 (77%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 197 KBytes 1.61 Mbits/sec 2.132 ms 98663/100238 (98%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.30 MBytes 10.9 Mbits/sec 0.425 ms 69398/80083 (87%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 380 KBytes 3.12 Mbits/sec 0.197 ms 36282/39324 (92%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.19 MBytes 9.98 Mbits/sec 0.050 ms 150763/160508 (94%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.15 MBytes 9.66 Mbits/sec 2.299 ms 99556/108987 (91%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 123 MBytes 103 Mbits/sec 16.775 ms 880105/1006278 (87%)
[ 4] Sent 1006278 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 35 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

Edit 16:53:

Mit WireShark komme ich leider nicht zu recht. Ich weiss nicht was genau ich überhaupt überprüfen / messen soll. Meine XBOX hat die IP 192.168.1.102, ich wüsste nun aber nicht, wie ich mit dem PC oder Laptop wo WireShark installiert ist diesen Traffic sehen könnte. Konnte diese IP nicht als externe Schnittstelle oder ähnliches definieren.

@GrandDixence Könntest Du mir hier einen Hinweis in die richtige Richtung geben was genau ich messen soll und ev ein Tipp wie ich das machen kann?

Vielen Dank und Gruss

This post is in English

tiibor · Oct 17, 2016

Hmmm somehow nothing is happening here anymore. So I’ll probably test it via WiFi from the neighbor (although certainly not ideal) and worst case with GGA Maur (I think it’s good value for money).

What would interest me:

What do the iperf measurements look like for other Swisscom (Fibre) customers? Exactly the same as mine? Or maybe there is something wrong with me?

If someone would test it:

Download the tool here: https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php

I think commands that you could/should run would be these:

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M
iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512

Thank you very much and greetings

doom2 · Oct 23, 2016

I tested it with Fiber7, with an unbiquity router (enterprise hardware… it definitely doesn’t slow anything down)

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M
[4] 0.00-10.00 sec 113 MBytes 95.0 Mbits/sec 0.192 ms 147/14499 (1%)

iperf3 -u -R -c debit.k-net.fr -b 95M -l 512

[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 113 MBytes 95.2 Mbits/sec 0.042 ms 134246/232411 (58%)

But do these tests really matter? You will hardly need 95mbit/s for your Xbox games. But if you have one or more routers on the way that say “no one really needs that much udp traffic” and start dropping, then you have a problem (or the server at the other end doesn’t like the packet sizes either).

If I do 512byte with 1MBit/s I have 0% loss (0.0.. 0 packets lost, 0 out of order).. and that is more the traffic size that is relevant when playing. Even with 10Mbit/s I still have 0 packet loss.

And why is downlink slower than uplink? There is a simple explanation for the speed tests: First of all, these servers are usually connected with 1Gbit/s. 10 testers with 100mbit and the server is closed. Since the majority of the world’s Internet connections are still asynchronous (usually 1:10), there is more capacity for the upload tests… correspondingly the higher result. I can observe this myself with my Giga Link - for example, just take a server from Seattle… downlink 235mbit/s, uplink 637mbit/s. And ping also 174ms.

I think we’re measuring things that have nothing to do with the problem. Bit rates are far from what is really used for online gaming. Test servers that are not located where the game servers are. Even if the test server were in the same data center as the game servers - that doesn’t mean that the traffic there goes through the same places. Keyword peering for example…

In order to narrow down the problem, possible sources of error would have to be eliminated step by step. For example, by connecting to another router and only connecting the XBox there. Or you can pack your XBox under your arm and go to a neighbor who has a different provider (bringing a carton of beer or a bottle of wine can be helpful 😉 The fact that the servers are in the USA speaks against EA - sensible cloud providers e.g. have geographically distributed data centers - and this is even more important when gaming, after all, the ping is central there.

tiibor · Oct 25, 2016

Hello @doom2

Thank you for your detailed answer!

"But do these tests really matter? You will hardly need 95mbit/s for your Xbox games. But if you have one or more routers on the way that say “nobody really needs that much udp traffic” and start then you have a problem (or the server at the other end doesn’t like the packet sizes either)."

Good question. I don’t know whether I would (if I knew how) use WireShark to test what is really being sent/used.

“If I do 512byte with 1MBit/s I have 0% loss (0.0.. 0 packets lost, 0 out of order).. and that is more the traffic size that is relevant when playing. Even with 10Mbit/s I always have 0 packet loss left.”

Here I still had a high packet loss (if I interpret my results correctly). If I should/can test with other commands, please let me know.

“And why is downlink slower than uplink? There is a simple explanation for the speed tests: First of all, these servers are usually connected at 1Gbit/s. 10 testers at 100mbit and the server is closed. Because the majority of the world’s Internet connections are still asynchronous is (usually 1:10) there is more capacity for the upload tests.. correspondingly the higher result I can observe this myself with my Giga Link - e.g. Just took a server from Seattle… downlink 235mbit/s, uplink 637mbit/s and ping also 174ms.”

That has been put into perspective. In fact, the cable between the Internet box and the switch (on which the PC is connected) was to blame. The XBOX itself is connected directly to the Internet Box Plus. For testing purposes, it was the only device attached to the Internet Box.

Yes, I don’t think I can avoid testing somewhere else. I don’t know if that’s the case with my neighbors, they’re all a lot older and more serious… 😉 Let’s see. Maybe I’ll go via GGA Maur. On the other hand, I have the feeling that at least FIFA 17 is better. (I played again yesterday for a long time, and also online. It wasn’t ideal, but acceptable). But it’s hard to say whether some of the behavior is caused by the management, the game or the servers being too far away. Maybe it’s also the mix. I have to ask my friends who are traveling/on the Internet with something other than Swisscom. Then I could test it.

tiibor · Feb 1, 2017

Hello everyone

Here’s an update to my original problem:

Switched from XBOX to PS4 which brought an improvement outside of peak times.
In addition to my Swisscom Fiber subscription, I now also have one from iWay
\=> Most of the time I only play via iWay, as there are almost no problems with iWay in 95% of cases (outside of peak times). So here I can clearly say that with XBOX Live and PS4 something in the Swisscom network is not routed optimally, or it may be due to UDP throttling, lag compensation or whatever
EA has improved matchmaking in one of the FUT modes. New 5 instead of just 3 bars for displaying latency. Here I no longer have any problems with the combination above and the point below (new TV) if I wait until I have 5 green bars.
A new TV
A very big improvement came from switching to a new television (I previously had a Sony KDL46EX500), and I now have a Samsung UE55KS8080 with an extremely low input. I always assumed that the TV shouldn’t make a difference since I didn’t have any problems offline. Whatever the reason, the new TV makes a huge difference.

So if others have problems like I did, I strongly recommend doing a quick search on the internet for your TV’s input lag, maybe you’ll find something. There are also special sites that test newer TVs for input lag.

For now it works for me with the above changes. Thank you again for your help and patience! Greetings Marc