AS6453.net peering sucks
http://bgp.he.net/AS13037#_graph4 It appears that Zen internet also peer directly with Tinet Spa, although that doesn't bear any direct relevance to my problem , it does make you wonder why they do this,
To the problem it's self, to answer yet another negative POV from you Andy H they Plusnet /BT could arrange with level3 to use their GBLX or use the GTT links from Level 3 to take traffic onto Tinet Spa And not AS6453.net Goscomb is doing it this way and it looks like plusnet would use the level 3 GTT links without diverting to Paris
Do you also think this is acceptable to use for routing to a gaming server
So it's not only about as you said "messing around with the routing here will not make a single iota of difference in latency (apart from a few ms)." Fact is my latency should be sub 100ms and it's not because some dumb a** @ AS6543.net changed the route to what is offered to all isp's using AS6453.net currently , traffic routed Via 2 chicago switches adding 20+ms to the RTT they should know better that to do this ,
If Ubisoft actually really cared about their customers online gaming experience, they would have been getting this sorted out with AS6453.net long ago, or changed their peering to a different peering provider one who can like Tinet provide a direct route and lower latency ,
But ubisoft is a we take your money and do nothing or very little in return for it company , and i am not the only customer (mug who purchased some of their games) who has voiced their opinions about them, there are thousands of unhappy customers out there ,
And i think you will find that BT are using or where using AS6543.net recently and back in November last year when the uplay problems started BT customers where being routed over Atlas congento, who have a poor reputation, well going by some of the bt customers tracerts in their forums it would appear that way, and some where still reporting issues after they changed from tinet, they BT have mysteriously now fixed it, without saying what exactly it was, must of been down to them (bt) lol
To the problem it's self, to answer yet another negative POV from you Andy H they Plusnet /BT could arrange with level3 to use their GBLX or use the GTT links from Level 3 to take traffic onto Tinet Spa And not AS6453.net Goscomb is doing it this way and it looks like plusnet would use the level 3 GTT links without diverting to Paris
Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.netLooks a perfectly feasible route to me , no re direct to Paris and not peering directly with Tinet So what's negative about that? Do you have an issue with me wanting a lower ping to ubisoft,like the what i have been used to for several years ?
IP: 173.241.128.42
Date/Time: 19/03/2014 19:06:59 to 19/03/2014 19:07:46
Hop Sent Err PL% Min Max Avg Host Name / [IP]
1 12 0 0.0 0 1 0 home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2 12 2 16.7 13 131 32 lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
3 12 0 0.0 13 15 13 link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
4 12 0 0.0 13 14 13 xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
5 7 0 0.0 13 19 14 te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.249]
6 12 0 0.0 13 14 13 ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
7 4 0 0.0 13 16 14 ae-121-3507.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.9]
8 12 0 0.0 13 29 15 GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
9 12 0 0.0 156 175 167 xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.74]
10 12 4 33.3 95 132 100 ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42]
Do you also think this is acceptable to use for routing to a gaming server
So it's not only about as you said "messing around with the routing here will not make a single iota of difference in latency (apart from a few ms)." Fact is my latency should be sub 100ms and it's not because some dumb a** @ AS6543.net changed the route to what is offered to all isp's using AS6453.net currently , traffic routed Via 2 chicago switches adding 20+ms to the RTT they should know better that to do this ,
If Ubisoft actually really cared about their customers online gaming experience, they would have been getting this sorted out with AS6453.net long ago, or changed their peering to a different peering provider one who can like Tinet provide a direct route and lower latency ,
But ubisoft is a we take your money and do nothing or very little in return for it company , and i am not the only customer (mug who purchased some of their games) who has voiced their opinions about them, there are thousands of unhappy customers out there ,
And i think you will find that BT are using or where using AS6543.net recently and back in November last year when the uplay problems started BT customers where being routed over Atlas congento, who have a poor reputation, well going by some of the bt customers tracerts in their forums it would appear that way, and some where still reporting issues after they changed from tinet, they BT have mysteriously now fixed it, without saying what exactly it was, must of been down to them (bt) lol
I am not sure whether you do not read what I write or do not understand what I write?
Ubisoft currently have two peers: Tata and Tinet. All traffic goes via them to get to Ubisoft's network.
As I have already stated (on several occasions), BT are one of Plusnet's main peers. This has absolutely nothing to do with BT Infinity/BT Retail/Openreach/BT Wholesale (unless I am mistaken). According to those peering sites, 19% of all paths with Plusnet go via AS2856 (BTnet) - I don't think this equates to 19% of all Plusnet traffic being routed via BTnet, but I still think it is a fairly substantial amount of traffic.
Based on the routing table I posted from BTnet's looking glass, they are currently routing to the Ubisoft IPs directly from Tinet in London (which is what you want). The suggestion I put forward was for Plusnet to see if they can encourage your traffic to go via BTnet rather than Level3. This seems like the most logical sense thing to try (if this is at all possible) because you are then not trying to force Level3 to change its routing tables, which might be something they don't want to do, or it could take time etc.
There may be a perfectly logical explanation for the traffic with Level3 London being routed via Tata rather than Tinet. It's my understanding from what Barry/the Plusnet network guys have said that Ubisoft have the most influence on how the traffic gets to them. There may be a cost reason (i.e. traffic routed via Tata might be cheaper for them vs Tinet) or they could be network reason like trying to balance the traffic across their peers. Bare in mind that Level3 is a major global peer and they carry a significant amount of traffic.
The IPs I have found that respond to ICMP pings are the only ones we have within Ubisoft's network. These are clearly servers for Ubisoft, not switches.
We know they route with above.net London > Tinet London > Montreal - this has been confirmed to me by TBB.
I do not think those servers are set to respond to ICMP requests at a lower priority. This is on the basis that there is no noticeable variance in the minimum/average ping latency. There is however constantly low level packet loss on both graphs, but we do not know where that is coming from.
Is your TBB monitor to ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net still working? I would think it does not work anymore.
This is irrelevant. What are they using now?
I would bet that they are using Tinet if they are been routed via BTnet rather than Level3.
Edit:
These are the two Ubisoft IP addresses that respond to ICMP pings:
Your graph of the Tinet gateway shows no packet loss. I believe this shows that the peering to Ubisoft is fine. All of our graphs will take the same route.
My graphs have low level packet loss constantly - I believe this shows that there is a problem within Ubisoft's network somewhere. We do not know what these servers are used for - if they are gaming servers, then packet loss will impact performance.
I am more than happy to be corrected by one of the Plusnet staff/Barry in my observations.
Ubisoft currently have two peers: Tata and Tinet. All traffic goes via them to get to Ubisoft's network.
Quote from: deathtrap Why should Plusnet have to peer with or via bt ?
As I have already stated (on several occasions), BT are one of Plusnet's main peers. This has absolutely nothing to do with BT Infinity/BT Retail/Openreach/BT Wholesale (unless I am mistaken). According to those peering sites, 19% of all paths with Plusnet go via AS2856 (BTnet) - I don't think this equates to 19% of all Plusnet traffic being routed via BTnet, but I still think it is a fairly substantial amount of traffic.
Based on the routing table I posted from BTnet's looking glass, they are currently routing to the Ubisoft IPs directly from Tinet in London (which is what you want). The suggestion I put forward was for Plusnet to see if they can encourage your traffic to go via BTnet rather than Level3. This seems like the most logical sense thing to try (if this is at all possible) because you are then not trying to force Level3 to change its routing tables, which might be something they don't want to do, or it could take time etc.
There may be a perfectly logical explanation for the traffic with Level3 London being routed via Tata rather than Tinet. It's my understanding from what Barry/the Plusnet network guys have said that Ubisoft have the most influence on how the traffic gets to them. There may be a cost reason (i.e. traffic routed via Tata might be cheaper for them vs Tinet) or they could be network reason like trying to balance the traffic across their peers. Bare in mind that Level3 is a major global peer and they carry a significant amount of traffic.
Quote from: deathtrap The ip's that you are pinging is in a different range 216.98.57.134 and 216.98.54.42 Are those that respond to icmp requests, and without being able to see the full path and monitor that path the packet loss maybe be down to a switch being to busy to respond to a lower priority icmp request, not only this but this packet loss is via a 3rd party, how is this conclusive enough ?
I have a ping mointor set up to ping one of the IP's that plusnet traffic passes when going to ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net that shows no packet loss what so ever , that is using tinet backbone And route that another provider is routed to the IP or one of the IP's that the game actually uses, which is surely more relevent ?
The IPs I have found that respond to ICMP pings are the only ones we have within Ubisoft's network. These are clearly servers for Ubisoft, not switches.
We know they route with above.net London > Tinet London > Montreal - this has been confirmed to me by TBB.
I do not think those servers are set to respond to ICMP requests at a lower priority. This is on the basis that there is no noticeable variance in the minimum/average ping latency. There is however constantly low level packet loss on both graphs, but we do not know where that is coming from.
Is your TBB monitor to ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net still working? I would think it does not work anymore.
Quote from: deathtrap BT customers have been using AS6453,net
This is irrelevant. What are they using now?
I would bet that they are using Tinet if they are been routed via BTnet rather than Level3.
Edit:
These are the two Ubisoft IP addresses that respond to ICMP pings:
Your graph of the Tinet gateway shows no packet loss. I believe this shows that the peering to Ubisoft is fine. All of our graphs will take the same route.
My graphs have low level packet loss constantly - I believe this shows that there is a problem within Ubisoft's network somewhere. We do not know what these servers are used for - if they are gaming servers, then packet loss will impact performance.
I am more than happy to be corrected by one of the Plusnet staff/Barry in my observations.
Because it consistently shows a lower latency that's why, i'm making comparisons,Because it's quite possible it is an alternate route plusnet could use,
Its also the point i'm trying to make that peering via tinet results in lower latency than it does via tata currently because tata screwed up their route ,
as for some of the other IP's that this games uses they are currently switching between tinet and tata , and the latency is like a yoyo
and today at this moment the tinet is routed via paris, but this wasn't the case when i checked the other day iirc to routing to the others i have checked today changes, where as routing for 216.98.48.56 is more or less static, with the exception of 2 hops belonging to level 3
the 1st hop that alternates te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net and
and the 2nd alternating hop cycles these
ae-228-3604.edge3.London1.Level3.net ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net
Oh look
that is not going via tinet, that is the same congestion or whatever else caused that hump that my pingplotter graph shows, whilst on the tinet /ubisoft gateway i have been monitoring at the same time shown no such hump infact the only difference between the tbb monitor and what i'm able to see using pingplotter is at around 8am on the tbb graph there is a minor step(increase) in the base latency, which isnt observed on my pingplotter graph, but there maybe a number of reasons for that, even something at ttb's end
See the attachment my ping plotter graph showing the same hump at the same time oh and you can ignore the packet loss at the 1st hop my router, it shows as packet loss only because i'm also pinging the tinet ip simultaneously , and it refreshes a tracert each second
Its also the point i'm trying to make that peering via tinet results in lower latency than it does via tata currently because tata screwed up their route ,
as for some of the other IP's that this games uses they are currently switching between tinet and tata , and the latency is like a yoyo
and today at this moment the tinet is routed via paris, but this wasn't the case when i checked the other day iirc to routing to the others i have checked today changes, where as routing for 216.98.48.56 is more or less static, with the exception of 2 hops belonging to level 3
the 1st hop that alternates te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net and
and the 2nd alternating hop cycles these
ae-228-3604.edge3.London1.Level3.net ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net
Oh look
that is not going via tinet, that is the same congestion or whatever else caused that hump that my pingplotter graph shows, whilst on the tinet /ubisoft gateway i have been monitoring at the same time shown no such hump infact the only difference between the tbb monitor and what i'm able to see using pingplotter is at around 8am on the tbb graph there is a minor step(increase) in the base latency, which isnt observed on my pingplotter graph, but there maybe a number of reasons for that, even something at ttb's end See the attachment my ping plotter graph showing the same hump at the same time oh and you can ignore the packet loss at the 1st hop my router, it shows as packet loss only because i'm also pinging the tinet ip simultaneously , and it refreshes a tracert each second
