cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

AS6453.net peering sucks

Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

There have been quite a few routing changes... 4 in the last week
I could be totally wrong here in my understanding of how routing works, but I think that it is Ubisoft who are deciding that the traffic from Level3 goes via Tata rather than Tinet. It does not seem like routing via Tinet is an option at the moment - and this is perhaps totally out of Plusnet's control?
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

They can't do that, otherwise the likes of goscombe would have to peer with AS6453.net, which they currently don't  they use for reasons that appear obvious to me tinet
Ubisoft  peer with 2 providers  as6453.net and tinet , which  traffic is routed on will depend on who and what type of services the various ISP's are paying for,  level 3 have several different routing options available  it's not set in stone that they have to peer with AS6453,net, if it was  it would end in disaster  the link's that are clearly  getting close to saturation  would become saturated , So that theory doesn't compute
And plusnet have already said that they where about to "'depref' the Tata Communications (GLOBEINTERNET) path." but due to ubisoft, implementing  DDdos protection From Verisign  ,last week 12 /03/14 http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,120077.msg1083626.html#msg1083626 reply 61 from _CN_ they where unable to do this at that time
The DDos protection nonsense finished 15 March 2014 So why  has this still not been tried, ? I'm beginning to detect a brick wall awaits the next excuse from plusnet
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

But if that routing path is not offered to Level3 London, then how can Plusnet force something else?
Quote
BGP routing table entry for 216.98.48.0/20
Paths: (2 available, best #2)
  6453 22634
  AS-path translation: { GLOBEINTERNET AS22634 }
    edge3.London1 (metric 41240)
      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal
      Community: Europe  Lclprf_86 United_Kingdom Level3_Peer London Level3:11078 6453:1000 6453:1100 6453:1106
      Originator: edge3.London1
  6453 22634
  AS-path translation: { GLOBEINTERNET AS22634 }
    edge3.London1 (metric 41240)
      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal, best
      Community: Europe  Lclprf_86 United_Kingdom Level3_Peer London Level3:11078 6453:1000 6453:1100 6453:1106
      Originator: edge3.London1

If our traffic was routed via Level3 Paris again (which you've already stated you don't want - even though the network guys have said this should not impact latency), then we would be routed via Tinet:
Quote
BGP routing table entry for 216.98.48.0/20
Paths: (2 available, best #2)
  3257 22634
  AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE AS22634 }
    edge5.Paris1 (metric 20000)
      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal
      Community: 3257:3257 Europe  Lclprf_86 France Level3_Peer Paris
      Originator: edge5.Paris1
  3257 22634
  AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE AS22634 }
    edge5.Paris1 (metric 20000)
      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal, best
      Community: 3257:3257 Europe  Lclprf_86 France Level3_Peer Paris
      Originator: edge5.Paris1

@ Barry/Paul/Kelly/any other network specialists - Do Level3 have a choice here or are these routes decided by Ubisoft/Tata/Tinet?
It would seem like, if we were being routed via BT rather than Level3, then Tinet would be used:
Quote
BGP routing table entry for 216.98.48.0/20, version 80732835
Bestpath Modifiers: deterministic-med
Paths: (2 available, best #2)
  Advertised to update-groups:
    1      
  2914 3257 22634
    166.49.166.216 (metric 87) from 166.49.166.216 (166.49.165.216)
      Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal
      Community: 2914:420 2914:1203 2914:2201 2914:3200 5400:3001 5400:3003
  1299 3257 22634
    166.49.166.215 (metric 87) from 166.49.166.215 (166.49.165.215)
      Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
      Community: 1299:20000 5400:3001 5400:3003

@ Deathtrap - I would put a large amount of money that messing around with the routing here will not make a single iota of difference in latency (apart from a few ms).
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: 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
Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
        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]
Looks 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 ?
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
Highlighted
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,789
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎08-06-2007

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Level3 bought Global Crossing some time ago.
The offer to 'depref' a route is a decision by Plusnet to direct traffic in a different direction.  They can't (directly) influence the route the traffic will take after it has left their network.  They CAN influence where the traffic leaves their network (and to which peering partner it goes).  I suspect that PN have several peering links to Level3, so could choose to route traffic over a different link, which /may/ have an affect on the route it takes through the Level3 network, although that's not guaranteed.
Ubisoft will have a similar situation by which they announce their netblocks to their (two?) providers.  They can 'weight' particular routes which means that they can coerce more traffic over certain links (although it's not a precise science, especially when multihoming across ISPs).
At the end of the day, the current issue seems to be that Level3 have decided to route the majority of their traffic first to Paris, and from there it picks up a subotimal route.  This is likely because of their new transatlantic links that run from Saint Brieuc to Brookhaven which are much less congested than their older pipes that run from Bude and Penzance, so they will have taken a business decision to utilize these new links.  Of course, this means that when it terminates in Brookhaven, they will hand off to the peer that is closest on the 'AS Path' to the destination, which in this case appears to be AS6543.net?
The only way for this to be changed would be for PN to apply pressure to Level 3 to get the routing changed.  To be honest, I deal with Level3 on a daily basis, and getting them to "fix" something in their network can be akin to asking a 5 year old to compose an orchestral score.  We had an issue where all UK traffic directed at our London datacentre was being routed via Paris for a while, and it was only after we threatened to withdraw all 220GB of global bandwidth from them that they actually relented and "fixed" the issue.
B.
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

@ Barry, the gateway that i'm currently on doesn't route over level 3  via Paris, to AS6453.net, although some of the Plusnet gateways do or did  route this way  neither does the tinet option to ubisoft , So as you have said that may depend on how plusnet route some of their traffic into level 3 ?  that could explain  why this has been observed , or it could be entirely down to level3's inability to recognise traffic aimed at a gaming server , TBH level 3 sound like Ubisoft , only when you threaten their pocket do they want to know
AS6453.net will most likely be the same as them, to deal with
Just after they started the DDos scrubbing  there was a very short break  and the route was visible, and i was being routed over level 3 >> tinet spa,in a similar or the very same  way that my  tinet tracert  i posted above , and the rtt was 89-90ms, why that didn't stick  don't know, because a few days later after the scrubbing ended  i had the congested laggy as6453.net route back, And if ubi are influencing traffic to take that congested route that is going a longer way around increasing latency  then they really shouldn't be hosting a gaming server ,
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

All gateways (PCL/PTW/PTN) are routing via Level3 London then AS6453/Tata at the moment it seems.
Again - I don't fully understand how and who decides what traffic goes which route...but if you look at that BGPlay graph/table that Barry posted last week, you will see that there was a change on 18 March in the early hours (The route 56730 31463 3356 3257 22634 is changed to 56730 31463 3356 6453 22634). The timing is identical to the 12-15ms fall in latency to the Ubisoft servers on my TBB Ping Monitors and also the change in Level3 routing with Plusnet to London/Tata only (rather than via Paris). So I am assuming this change was made for a legitimate reason - maybe to rebalance some traffic across the two peers to Ubisoft (Tinet/Tata)?
It would seem like Ubisoft prefer routing via Tata if you look at the history of the routing in BGPlay. Early on this year, they were the only peer for Ubisoft. This changed on 5 Jan 2014 with Tinet becoming the second peer, but there have been a lot of new routings announced since then moving traffic away from Tinet and back to Tata.
Surely the simplest solution for Plusnet to try (if this is possible) is to try and force the traffic to peer via BT (@deathtrap - do not confuse BT Peering with BT Wholesale/BT Retail/Openreach) who appear to be routing directly with Tinet to Ubisoft?
@deathtrap I also reiterate that I do not think this will fix your problems. There is constant packet loss (I do not where/why this is happening) on those TBB graphs to the Ubisoft servers with the Tinet route. The Chief Network Architect for BT did state on TBB that "we have taken action multiple times to deal with a clear congestion problem on the networks that Ubi are using. Tinet and Cogent."
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Quote
Surely the simplest solution for Plusnet to try (if this is possible) is to try and force the traffic to peer via BT (@deathtrap - do not confuse BT Peering with BT Wholesale/BT Retail/Openreach) who appear to be routing directly with Tinet to Ubisoft?

Why should Plusnet have to peer with or via bt ? 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 ?

@deathtrap I also reiterate that I do not think this will fix your problems. There is constant packet loss (I do not where/why this is happening) on those TBB graphs to the Ubisoft servers with the Tinet route. The Chief Network Architect for BT did state on TBB that "we have taken action multiple times to deal with a clear congestion problem on the networks that Ubi are using. Tinet and Cogent."
BT customers have been using AS6453,net 
Quote
tracert uplay.ubi.com
Tracing route to lb-game2web.ubisoft.com [216.98.48.111]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms router.mjolnir.local [192.168.1.1]
2 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.140.64
3 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.140.30
4 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.120.161.42
5 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 31.55.164.55
6 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 31.55.164.107
7 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms acc1-10gige-0-3-0-1.bm.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.248.112]
8 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms core2-te-0-2-5-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.248.2]
9 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms transit2-xe-11-1-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.20.154]
10 43 ms 19 ms 19 ms t2c4-xe-10-3-0-0.uk-ilf.eu.bt.net [166.49.168.109]
11 40 ms 21 ms 21 ms xe-10-3-0.edge3.london1.level3.net [195.50.124.17]
12 21 ms 21 ms 22 ms ix-20-0.tcore1.ldn-london.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
13 126 ms 151 ms 126 ms if-17-2.tcore1.l78-london.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
14 120 ms 118 ms 117 ms if-2-2.tcore2.l78-london.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
15 139 ms 116 ms 116 ms if-20-2.tcore2.nyy-newyork.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
16 121 ms 120 ms 120 ms if-12-6.tcore1.ct8-chicago.as6453.net [216.6.99.46]
17 119 ms 119 ms 120 ms if-22-2.tcore2.ct8-chicago.as6453.net [64.86.79.1]
18 118 ms 118 ms 121 ms if-3-2.tcore1.w6c-montreal.as6453.net [66.198.96.45]
19 * * 66.198.96.18 reports: Destination net unreachable.
Trace complete.
or they where on 11-07-2013, 09:11 PM and where routed via Chicago . when  plusnet traffic wasn't it went direct iirc
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/773183-Uplay-connection-issues/page27?s=23f565d37786f2f4b05f20e...
But in November last year they where using atlas cogento according to another tracert
Here is one from 15th of this month
Quote
Here is a tracert to the ubisoft website from my PC:

C:\>tracert www.ubi.com
Tracing route to lb-portal.ubisoft.com [216.98.48.35]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 34 ms <1 ms <1 ms BTHomeHub.home [192.168.1.254]
2 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.147.104
3 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.147.174
4 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms 212.140.206.90
5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 217.41.169.215
6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 217.41.169.109
7 52 ms 18 ms 18 ms acc2-xe-0-1-3.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.251.211]
8 28 ms 29 ms 31 ms core2-te0-2-3-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.251.147]
9 28 ms 27 ms 27 ms transit2-xe9-0-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.200.185]
10 28 ms 27 ms 26 ms t2c4-xe-10-1-0-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net [166.49.168.37]
11 35 ms 35 ms 35 ms xe-4-0-0.edge4.London2.Level3.net [212.187.201.125]
12 36 ms 35 ms * ae-0-11.edge3.London2.Level3.net [4.69.200.125]
13 35 ms 36 ms 32 ms ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net [4.69.141.86]
14 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms ae-61-61.csw1.Paris1.Level3.net [4.69.161.78]
15 35 ms 35 ms 35 ms ae-1-60.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net [4.69.168.8]
16 36 ms 36 ms 35 ms ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.103.181]
17 113 ms 111 ms 111 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.74]
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 * * * Request timed out.
26 * * * Request timed out.
27 * * * Request timed out.
28 * ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42] reports: Destination net unreachable.
Trace complete.
  https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/Ubisoft-connection-issues-again/m-p/1193377...
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/Ubisoft-connection-issues-again/m-p/1193937... suggests that they use several peering providers  tata being one of them


Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

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.
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.
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

All our graphs except  my graph to the AS6453.net hop before the ubisoft network  are routed over tinet perhaps, my tinet graph still works i posted a copy of it in my  previous reply,
That isn't the tinet/ubisoft gateway (ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42]  ) it's pinging the tinet switch immediately before that ,  because  the gateway  is set not to respond to icmp requests , as are all of ubi IP's are in the range 216.98.48. ***
Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
        IP: 173.241.128.42
 Date/Time: 20/03/2014 11:52:41 to 20/03/2014 11:53:54
Hop Sent Err   PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
1    16   1   0.0   0   0   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2    16   0   0.0  13  33  16  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
3    16   0   0.0  13  13  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
4    16   0   0.0  12  56  16  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
5    16   0   0.0  13 226  67  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
6    16   0   0.0  13  13  13  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
7    16   0   0.0  13  16  13  ae-120-3506.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.5]
8    16   0   0.0  13  17  13  GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
9    16   0   0.0  95 110  96  xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.74]
10    16  16 100.0   0   0   0   [-]

Destination not reached in 35 hops
Using normal ICMP
Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
        IP: 173.241.128.42
 Date/Time: 20/03/2014 11:57:48 to 20/03/2014 11:58:17
Hop Sent Err  PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
1    30   0  0.0   0   1   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2    30   5 16.7  13 100  25  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
3    30   3 10.0  13  16  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
4    30   0  0.0  13  23  13  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
5    23   2  8.7  15 194  74  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
6    30   0  0.0  13  19  14  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
7    10   0  0.0  13  14  13  ae-122-3508.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.13]
8    30   0  0.0  13  14  13  GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
9    30   0  0.0 100 138 102  xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.74]
10    30   0  0.0  95 111  96  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42]
Using TCP port 3099  


Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

It seems like Level3 tried to change things - but Tinet wanted the traffic routed via Paris?
Quote
Route results for 216.98.48.0/20 from London, England (2)
BGP routing table entry for 216.98.48.0/20
Paths: (2 available, best #2)
 3257 22634
 AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE AS22634 }
   edge5.Paris1 (metric 41160)
     Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal
     Community: 3257:3257 Europe  Lclprf_86 France Level3_Peer Paris
     Originator: edge5.Paris1
 3257 22634
 AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE AS22634 }
   edge5.Paris1 (metric 41160)
     Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal, best
     Community: 3257:3257 Europe  Lclprf_86 France Level3_Peer Paris
     Originator: edge5.Paris1

The route 56730 31463 3356 6453 22634 is changed to 56730 31463 3356 3257 22634
The route 14361 3257 22634 is changed to 14361 3356 6453 22634
Quote
TRACEROUTE (using port 3077/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  1.36 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  6.39 ms  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net (195.166.128.195)
3  5.49 ms  link-b-central10.ptw-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.146)
4  10.17 ms  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.242)
5  6.29 ms  ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.4)
6  5.42 ms  ae2.pcl-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.6)
7  5.32 ms  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.120)
8  18.69 ms  vl-3201-ve-128.ebr2.London2.Level3.net (4.69.202.177)
9  5.02 ms  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net (195.219.83.101)
10  97.16 ms  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.130.129)
11  98.22 ms  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.131.1)
12  11.72 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
13  100.00 ms if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
14  89.18 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
15  89.33 ms  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
16  100.42 ms 66.198.96.18
17  90.95 ms  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

Quote
TRACEROUTE (using proto 1/icmp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  0.72 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  6.56 ms  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net (195.166.128.195)
3  5.16 ms  link-b-central10.ptw-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.146)
4  5.06 ms  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.242)
5  5.28 ms  ae1.pcl-cr02.plus.net (195.166.129.3)
6  4.79 ms  ae2.pcl-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.6)
7  4.96 ms  xe-11-2-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.213)
8  11.63 ms vl-3201-ve-128.ebr2.London2.Level3.net (4.69.202.177)
9  11.50 ms ae-42-42.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.159.86)
10  11.49 ms ae-61-61.csw1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.7Cool
11  11.35 ms ae-1-60.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.Cool
12  11.85 ms ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
13  89.36 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.74)
14  89.16 ms ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
15  89.11 ms msr-onl-fw05.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.7)
16  89.57 ms 216.98.54.42

Quote
TRACEROUTE (using proto 1/icmp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  0.76 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  19.06 ms  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net (195.166.128.195)
3  5.81 ms  link-b-central10.ptw-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.146)
4  5.79 ms  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.242)
5  5.52 ms  ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.4)
6  425.46 ms te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net (217.163.45.249)
7  5.84 ms  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.8Cool
8  5.68 ms  ae-115-3501.edge3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.166.130)
9  5.95 ms  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net (195.219.83.101)
10  97.16 ms  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.130.129)
11  98.27 ms  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.131.1)
12  98.94 ms  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.99.13)
13  98.63 ms  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
14  98.66 ms  if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (64.86.79.1)
15  115.93 ms if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net (66.198.96.45)
16  99.11 ms  66.198.96.18
17  99.00 ms  mdc-off-fw03.ubisoft.com (216.98.49.143)
18  99.24 ms  mdc-mon-smok01.ubisoft.com (216.98.57.134)

deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
        IP: 216.98.48.56
 Date/Time: 20/03/2014 16:47:38 to 20/03/2014 18:01:56
Hop Sent Err  PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
1  1000   0 0.0   0   1   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2  1000   0  0.0  13 265  19  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
3  1000   0  0.0  13  80  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
4  1000   0  0.0  12  77  15  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
5   998 124 12.4  13 460  47  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
6  1000   0  0.0  13  32  13  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.120]
7    10   0  0.0  13  13  13  ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.154]
8  1000   0  0.0  13  86  13  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
9  1000  44  4.4 105 127 109  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
10  1000   5  0.5 106 124 108  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
11  1000  96  9.6 107 172 112  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
12  1000  67  6.7 106 126 108  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [216.6.99.46]
13  1000   1  0.1 106 129 108  if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [64.86.79.1]
14  1000   0  0.0 107 128 108  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net [66.198.96.45]
15     7   0  0.0 120 127 123  [66.198.96.18]
16     7   0  0.0 121 124 122  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com [216.98.51.10]
17  1000 993 99.3 122 173 139  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com [216.98.48.56]
Well Here's is what is happening  now as i make this post, using tcp ping port3099 this is the route that the game takes to lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com congestion has started to kick in  on that AS6453.net  TATA link  Which is what i am bothered about, why do you keep posting tracert's of a different ip address  that takes a different route which is also possibly outside the same IP range too ?
The only IP's the game i'm concerned those about those IP's that the game actually uses not others,
and for a direct comparison on what the latency would probably be if  routed over Tinet
Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
        IP: 173.241.128.42
 Date/Time: 20/03/2014 18:01:36 to 20/03/2014 18:09:25
Hop Sent Err  PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
1   253   0  0.0   0   1   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2   257   5  1.9  13 315  20  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
3   256   0  0.0  13  21  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
4   256   0  0.0  13  36  13  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
5   123  22 17.9  13 334  54  te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.249]
6   256   4  1.6  13  24  14  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
7    85   1  1.2  13  31  13  ae-122-3508.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.13]
8   256   2  0.8  13  43  14  GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
9    87   2  2.3  97 168 111  xe-4-2-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.125]
10   256   0  0.0  90 316  96  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42]
90-96ms  i rest my case The TATA route sucks and is congested and they are routing traffic IMO incorrectly because they clearly don't give a dam ,
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Quote from: deathtrap
why do you keep posting tracert's of a different ip address  that takes a different route which is also possible outside the same IP range too ?

What do you mean outside the same IP range?
Quote
NetRange 216.98.48.0 - 216.98.63.255
CIDR 216.98.48.0/20

These are Ubisoft servers in the same physical location as the address you are pinging.
I am confused why you keep pinging a Tinet gateway that's routed a completely different way.
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

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
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

(Anyone please correct me if what I say here is wrong)
Ignore 173.241.128.42/ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net - the routing to that is completely irrelevant.
Ubisoft broadcast routings for their whole IP range (216.98.48.0 - 216.98.63.255).
Level3 London (i.e. the peer for your Ubisoft traffic from Plusnet) is currently using two different routes, depending on which core router your traffic passes through. This is why when on a PCL gateway, you might go from Level3 London > Level3 Paris > Tinet Paris > Tinet Montreal > Ubisoft and on a PTW/PTN gateway you might go from Level3 London > Tata London > Tata New York > Tata Chicago > Tata Montreal > Ubisoft.
The routings are constantly changing at the moment (several times today already) - so someone is clearly doing something. But, it looks like things are totally messed up. These are two trace routes within the space of 10 mins of one another:
Quote
TRACEROUTE (using port 3077/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  3.05 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  104.43 ms lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net (195.166.128.195)
3  6.52 ms  link-b-central10.ptw-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.146)
4  6.24 ms  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.242)
5  7.57 ms  ae1.pcl-cr02.plus.net (195.166.129.3)
6  31.78 ms  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net (217.163.45.181)
7  7.59 ms  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.120)
8  6.27 ms  ae-225-3601.edge3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.166.146)
9  6.59 ms  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net (195.219.83.101)
10  110.75 ms if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.130.129)
11  12.54 ms  ae-3-80.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.136)
12  12.57 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
13  115.85 ms if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
14  90.21 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
15  90.18 ms  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
16  115.76 ms 66.198.96.18
17  111.55 ms msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
18  124.74 ms lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

Quote
TRACEROUTE (using port 3077/tcp)
HOP RTT       ADDRESS
1   1.20 ms   router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   15.15 ms  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net (195.166.128.195)
3   5.47 ms   link-b-central10.ptw-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.146)
4   5.17 ms   xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.242)
5   4.99 ms   ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.4)
6   5.18 ms   ae1.pcl-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.1)
7   5.18 ms   ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.120)
8   4.80 ms   ae-228-3604.edge3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.166.15Cool
9   11.36 ms  ae-43-43.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.159.90)
10  11.54 ms  ae-71-71.csw2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.82)
11  109.96 ms if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.131.1)
12  11.81 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
13  113.29 ms if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
14  111.79 ms if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (64.86.79.1)
15  111.89 ms if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net (66.198.96.45)
16  91.13 ms  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

The latency to the target address is actually pretty good in the second trace route considering the merry-go-round between London and Paris - it shows you that the geographics are not as important as you think.
I am totally out of my comfort zone here - but it looks like in the second trace route that there is a bit of an argument between Level3/AS6453 and Tinet about the route the traffic takes?