AS6453.net peering sucks

[#1]

Quote from: deathtrap

....Your distraction tactics aren't working give up

Thats not a very constructive post deathtrap.  From what I've read AndyH is just trying to offer an alternative viewpoint on the issue.

[#2]

Indeed.
To be fair, the problem could also have been Ubisoft's end last night.
I have three TBB monitors to Ubisoft IPs now. Whilst I appreciate that they are not the specific IP for the gaming server you use, they are still only Ubisoft addresses that can be monitored with ICMP pings. It is worrying that there is constant small level packet loss on all three TBB monitors. If this packet loss is also present on your lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com address, this will be far more disruptive to your gaming than an extra 10-20ms in latency due to the peer routing.

[#3]

Ubisoft de-aggregated part of the IP range just before we were going to look at how to route all the traffic over Tinet. We tried to set up peering over this new route but the upstream partner from Ubisoft declined our request, which is perfectly within their rights. So we're going to back to the plan of looking at routing the traffic over Tinet again, I'll pick that up with the ops guys this week.

[#4]

@ Dave  thank's for the update,  although i'm not quite sure when you mean by



Thank's for the update, although i'm not sure what /which  provider  you tried to set up peering over a new route with , As far as i'm aware Ubisoft have 2 peers TATA(as6453.net) and Tinet ,
Who was providing this new route ? The only  big changes recently where when ubi hired verisign DDos protection services  and all or nearly all ubi traffic  appeared to get routed  via their scrubbing centre , but this was thank fully only a temporary measure ,as it further increased the latency

[#5]

They were setting up some traffic to go via Verisign but if that's gone again then that's probably why the peering request was declined.

[#6]

Versign is/was only for DDos scrubbing  Ubisoft wouldn't be ever going to pay through the nose for peering from verisign, when they already route  traffic between 2 peering companies,
They have never spent money in ways that benefit their customers, unless they stand to gain  too, and then any benefits to the customers would come last

[#7]

@ dave - Is it possible for you to chose between routing via Level3 or BTnet for Ubisoft traffic?
BTnet appear to route with Tinet for Ubisoft:

Quote

BT Global Services: Looking Glass Query: BGP Network Router: United Kingdom - t2a1.uk-lon1 Address: 216.98.57.134 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

Would this mean if you were able to route with BTnet, then traffic to 216.98.48.0/20 (Ubisoft) would go via Tinet?

[#8]

They possibly could, but if this added latency and used the same path as BT customers then this may also cause other issues So how would this be a acceptable solution ?, IMO plusnet should where possible  always get traffic routed in a direct way where possible,
Andy have you seen the latency  to ubisoft  from BT customers ? It's higher than what i'm seeing now  even when it takes the same path  Level 3 AS6453.net  Not only this traffic may inherit any BT issues  that we plusnet customers don't already have , So no thanks to your route traffic Via  BT idea , that's not my idea of a solution ,  

[#9]

Ignore the latency BT Retail customers have seen (which could still have been the Ubisoft peers). You are mixing up BTnet and BT Retail, they are totally separate.
All you need is for your traffic to go from Plusnet's network in London to Tinet's network in London - this cannot take more than a few ms irrespective of who carries the traffic there! Once your traffic is with one of Ubisoft's peers, Plusnet really do have zero control over it.
I am just wondering how Plusnet would be able to get your Ubisoft traffic from Level3 London to Tinet London because that does not appear to be an option for Level3 London according to their routing tables.

[#10]

Where is the delete button ?

[#11]

https://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,120077.msg1083626.html#msg1083626 Is the point where i think  the confusion  starts to creep in  where _CN_  Questions if or not if  this BGP route change announcement  for traffic to transit via AS26415 (VERISIGN-INC) Was an additional peer or not,  I suppose the short answer is yes it was ,but it was only  a temporary one, to enable  ubisoft traffic to be scanned/cleaned by  the Verisign DDos scrubbing  centre  as well as masking  part of the route to ubisoft  It wasn't ever going to be a permanent route,

Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
         IP: 173.241.128.42
  Date/Time: 24/03/2014 17:31:26 to 24/03/2014 17:32:14
Hop Sent Err  PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
 1    28   0  0.0  0   1   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
 2    28   1  3.6  14 134  27  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3    28   3 10.7  13  14  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4    28   0  0.0  13  18  13  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5    11   0  0.0  14 221  84  te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.249]
 6    28   0  0.0  13  18  13  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
 7    10   0  0.0  13  37  15  ae-120-3506.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.5]
 8    28   0  0.0  13  38  14  GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
 9    28   0  0.0  99 189 107  xe-7-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.106.106]
10    27   5 18.5  95  96  95  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42]

Although of course  i'm not routed via tinet, so can't  see what route  traffic to ubisoft IP216.98.48.56 would take, the above route does show that level3  are able to route onto tinet at Montreal ( mtl10 )
From BT's LG

Tracing the route to lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)
  1 t2c3-xe-1-3-1-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net (166.49.135.0) 0 msec 188 msec 200 msec
  2 213.248.82.249 [AS 1299] 12 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  3 ldn-bb1-link.telia.net (62.115.137.190) [AS 1299] 0 msec
    ldn-bb2-link.telia.net (213.155.136.62) [AS 1299] 12 msec
    ldn-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.249.131) [AS 1299] 204 msec
  4 ldn-b3-link.telia.net (80.91.251.237) [AS 1299] 200 msec
    ldn-b3-link.telia.net (213.155.133.33) [AS 1299] 176 msec
    ldn-b3-link.telia.net (80.91.254.17) [AS 1299] 200 msec
  5 ae4.lon21.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.99.241) [AS 3257] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  6 xe-7-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.106.106) [AS 3257] 84 msec 152 msec 84 msec
  7  *	*  * 
  8  *	*  * 
  9  *	*  * 
 10  *	*  * 
 11 ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42) [AS 3257] !A  *  * 

 But what are all the Telia Hops about ? Linx also peer  into tinet
https://stats.linx.net/cgi-pub/xlg.pl?run=true&site=LINX-London&query_type=+Trace&address=216.98.48....
https://stats.linx.net/cgi-pub/xlg.pl?run=true&site=LINX-London&query_type=+Trace&address=216.98.48....

[#12]

Hmm I overlooked the fact that BTnet don't connect directly to Tinet  

Quote from: deathtrap

Although of course  i'm not routed via tinet, so can't  see what route  traffic to ubisoft IP216.98.48.56 would take, the above route does show that level3  are able to route onto tinet at Montreal ( mtl10 )

As I have said before, you can't look at how your traffic is routed to ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net and compare that to lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com because they are totally different. One is Tinet (even though it's the gateway for Ubisoft - but appears to no longer be? The DNS no longer resolves for me) and the other is Ubisoft. They have completely different routing tables.
Level3 London 1

Quote

BGP routing table entry for 173.241.128.0/20 Paths: (2 available, best #1)  3257  AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE }    edge4.London1 (metric 20040)      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal, best      Community: 3257:3257 Europe  Lclprf_86 United_Kingdom Level3_Peer London Level3:11078      Originator: edge4.London1  3257  AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE }    edge4.London1 (metric 20040)      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal      Community: 3257:3257 Europe  Lclprf_86 United_Kingdom Level3_Peer London Level3:11078      Originator: edge4.London1 Level3 London 1

Level3 London 2

Quote

BGP routing table entry for 173.241.128.0/20 Paths: (2 available, best #2)  3257  AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE }    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  AS-path translation: { TINET-BACKBONE }    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

If you are on a PCL gateway, you are routed through Level3 London 2 which takes via Paris. If you are on a PTW/PTN, you are routed via Level3 London 1 which takes you to Tinet London.

Quote

TRACEROUTE (using port 587/tcp) HOP RTT       ADDRESS 1   1.34 ms   router.asus.com (192.168.1.1) 2   5.99 ms   lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183) 3   5.25 ms   link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164) 4   5.05 ms   xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196) 5   5.09 ms   xe-11-1-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.209) 6   11.89 ms  vl-3201-ve-128.ebr2.London2.Level3.net (4.69.202.177) 7   11.73 ms  ae-44-44.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.159.94) 8   11.82 ms  ae-81-81.csw3.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.86) 9   11.57 ms  ae-1-60.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.8 ) 10  11.72 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181) 11  197.34 ms xe-4-2-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.107.125) 12  88.85 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)

[#13]

What i did said andy was this,
"Although of course  i'm not routed via tinet, so can't  see what route  traffic to ubisoft IP216.98.48.56 would take, the above route does show that level3  are able to route onto tinet at Montreal ( mtl10 ) "
mtl10.ip4.tinet.net according to  tinet's looking glass is located in Montreal not london
 see http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,120077.msg1088297.html#msg1088297
So whilst i cannot perform a tracert to 216.98.48.56 aka  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com that is routed over tinet , i think it perfectly reasonable to  assume that  traffic from plusnet would take the exact same route as it does currently  to ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42) which is tinet's front door into ubisoft , and not only this but the linx tracerts to the UBI server 216.98.48.56 route to the very same front door ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net , as do tracert's from other providers that peer directly with tinet, So i have no reason to belive that plusnet traffic would not route to this ubi/tinet gateway (ubi's front door)  therefore it's reasonable safe  to assume that the rtt to that switch is a good indication of what sort of ping  i could expect to see if routed over tinet,  i estimate 90-96ms  for me,  which would be around 6ms less for you ( when taking the same route from plusnet )  as our base latency  differs mine is 12-13ms and yours is  only 5-6ms
And yes  as you have pointed out  the plusnet PCL routing onto level 3  is different and for some reason  gets routed to paris ,but at least it's not returning back to london before going to tinet , it that doubling back that increases the latency  
These  Are the Tinet switches  that zen 's traffic routes through to ubisoft 216.98.48.56

ge-3-0-0-0.cr2.wh-man.zen.net.uk 0.0% 6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 0.1
7. ae2-117.man11.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 6 2.7 11.7 2.6 56.9 22.1
8. xe-1-2-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 5 79.5 79.6 79.5 79.8 0.1
9. ???

Their traffic  route over a different tinet switch in Montreal (89.149.186.217) before hitting the  gateway

[#14]

Our realistic options are AS2856 -> AS5400 (BT) or Level3 (via Tinet or Tata). We have an advantage on the Level3 routing in that traffic from our PCL core routers always goes via Tinet and from Telehouse always goes via the Tata (I think I have them the right way round)
So we're looking at whether or not we can set the preferred route so it always goes PCL -> Level3 -> Tinet -> Ubisoft. even if you're connected to Telehouse. That's what I'm talking to the ops guys about.
The only problem is that it doesn't help with the return path. If we prefer Tinet, Ubisoft may prefer Tata and the problem is congestion in the direction back to us over Tata and that therefore doesn't fix it.

[#15]

@ dave - deathtrap's problem with Level3 from a PCL gateway is the traffic is routed to Tinet Paris, rather than Tinet London. Is this something Level3 have any control over or is it Tinet that decide where Level3 send them traffic for Ubisoft (AS22643)?
@ deathtrap - Zen has a number of core network locations, London, Leeds, Manchester and Rochdale. If you connect their Rochdale/Leeds gateways, you will take a different route to Ubisoft via Tinet - see http://www.zen.co.uk/about-us/our-network