AS6453.net peering sucks

[#1]

You are too quick  with your assumption that it's down to AS6453.net, I know that the routing got changed , but only for those who are peered with Level 3  it maybe is down to how Level 3 peer with AS6453.net  and they Level 3 raised the latency again for a few hrs this morning , they IMO are not reliable and i'm sure that plusnet are able to use a different peering partner than level3 or they at least should be able to
As for ubisoft.com What a useless games publisher they are, the way they operate is take  peoples money and do nothing in return ,when it comes to supporting  their games,
I agree  that they should have a network of servers around the globe because they sell their games on a global scale, But not ubisoft , most games publishers  allow a fully standalone dedicated server , that can be installed on independent gaming servers or on the end users pc, and apart from a server browser system, all traffic is connected directly to the host , not via a server farm , a much better system
Complaining to ubisoft, is totally  pointless  they would just say take it up with your ISP , and at they end of the day my contract is with plusnet for internet connectivity  not level3 or any other peering provider  or ubisoft

[#2]

Hmm...the traffic seems to go from Level 3 London (or possibly Paris) to Level 3 New York or AS6453 New York - but it does seem to then go on to either Chicago or direct to Montreal (in AS6453's network).
I wouldn't be so sure about Ubisoft being unhelpful with ISPs. When the Chief Network Architect from BT reached out to them about the problems with their customers, they seemed to have a dialogue behind the scenes to fix the problem. Also, it looks like some of the other peering partners (Cognet and TINET) were actually worse for UK users and BT had to move things to Level 3.

[#3]

But it's the opposite for me,  as said  when i joined plusnet back in April last year my base latency was 89-90ms to ubisoft , it is currently 107-108ms but has been higher than this, And in all the years that i have had  an internet connection using several ISP's  it has never been over 100ms  90-95ms is what it should be
Also    as for ubisoft customer services please don't make me laugh, here is the latest reply to the ticket that i raised with them regarding this issue

Quote

I have looked into your issue and passed your incident to the appropriate department for further analysis, I will email you as soon as I have further information to resolve your issue. Thank you for your continued patience.

That e-mail from ubisoft  support was received, 20 November 2013 12:02  that's how good or how bothered ubisoft support really are,
The Uplay issue was that lots of customers where unable to connect to the newer uplay system, not peering , If a thousand people  got together  and went public  they may suddenly appear to be bothered, but when a thousand people  who aren't together as such  do the same, they don't care  the response in the e-mail and the fact that they have not contacted me since proves this

[#4]

But the UPlay problem was fixed when the routing was changed. Something clearly went wrong - but it's a shame that no one quite knows what. It would be interesting if Kelly managed to find anything out.
As for your base pings - has there been any change to sites like bbc.co.uk? I doubt there is very much that can be done about the increase in the pings because they are still very much acceptable for transatlantic traffic. I've seen some SLAs for leased lines in the UK and those are about the difference we are talking here for UK to UK pings.

[#5]

No base latency hasn't increased  to any  other destination  ,well none that i know about or am bothered about,  that includes  some transatlantic destinations,  the ubisoft issue is down to indirect peering  a plane or car wouldn't go via Chicago to Montreal  from New York if they wanted to take the most direct /quickest route  why should a fibre cable  be so different ?
not only this but this issue has only recently been introduced, and as i've already posted there are other routes and peering available, even with both level3 and AS6453.net
Also using AS6453.net's looking glass  from  the Montreal server to my ip  the tracert doesn't route via Chicago  it routes as it should  directly to NewYork
So IMO it's down to the way  Level3 have configured their set up to connect to AS6453.net  this is the possibly the underlying cause  why traffic goes via chicago

[#6]

Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
         IP: 216.98.48.56
  Date/Time: 26/02/2014 18:05:41 to 26/02/2014 19:02:30
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  13 267  27  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3  1000   0   0.0  13 115  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4  1000   0   0.0  13  65  14  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5   999 133  13.3  13 446  56  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
 6  1000   0   0.0  13  24  13  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.120]
 7   975   1   0.1  13  97  15  ae-225-3601.edge3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.146]
 8  1000   0   0.0  13  58  14  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
 9  1000 370  37.0  90 111 104  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
10  1000 110  11.0  90 119 105  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
11  1000  22   2.2  90 156 107  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
12    94   3   3.2  90 104  91  if-2-2.tcore2.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net [64.86.226.13]
13    94   0   0.0  90  94  90  if-0-2.tcore1.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net [216.6.115.89]
14    94   0   0.0  90 102  90  if-5-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net [64.86.31.6]
Destination not reached in 35 hops

Routing/peering returned to what it was originally ,for now at least, i just hope it stays as it is
Well that was short lived as it just got switched back to the [Censored] routing again AS6453.NET are idiots!!!!!

Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
         IP: 216.98.48.56
  Date/Time: 26/02/2014 18:29:28 to 26/02/2014 19:25:01
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  13 604  26  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3  1000    0   0.0  13 115  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4  1000    0   0.0  13  68  14  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5  1000  143  14.3  13 427  54  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
 6  1000    0   0.0  13  38  13  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.120]
 7   983    0   0.0  13  96  15  ae-225-3601.edge3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.146]
 8  1000    0   0.0  13  66  14  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
 9  1000  241  24.1  90 138 100  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
10  1000   48   4.8  90 137 102  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
11  1000   71   7.1  90 165 105  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
12   690   36   5.2 106 133 108  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [216.6.99.46]
13   690    2   0.3 106 138 107  if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [64.86.79.1]
14   690    1   0.1 106 134 108  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net [66.198.96.45]

Destination not reached in 35 hops

[#7]

Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
         IP: 216.98.48.56
  Date/Time: 02/03/2014 16:31:49 to 02/03/2014 17:15:59
Hop Sent  Err   PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
 1  1000    2   0.2   0   2   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
 2  1000    0   0.0  13 541  25  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3  1000    0   0.0  13  92  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4  1000    0   0.0  13  71  14  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5  1000  285  28.5  13 464  48  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
 6  1000    0   0.0  13  24  13  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.120]
 7   979    1   0.1  13  86  14  ae-225-3601.edge3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.146]
 8  1000    0   0.0  13  61  14  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
 9  1000   31   3.1 107 144 121  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
10  1000   31   3.1 106 130 108  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
11  1000   47   4.7 112 171 127  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
12  1000   49   4.9 111 145 123  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [216.6.99.46]
13  1000   23   2.3 111 142 122  if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [64.86.79.1]
14  1000    2   0.2 110 136 123  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net [66.198.96.45]

Destination not reached in 35 hops

This poor route to montreal is also showing signs of congestion ( increased latency and packet loss ) on hops from if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net to if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net  yet level 3 see nothing wrong

[#8]

Quote from: Kelly

We've raised it with them and they don't think there is a problem.   Issue is still open on our side.

It's been 2 weeks, any updates or progress on this?

[#9]

Nothing at all, but at least now i have proof that the routing  is out, to ubisoft.com  servers , and it is up to the ISP which provider they use  and the peering provider  how they peer with  others  someone somewhere  clearly doesn't know their ass for their elbow ,  at level 3 or AS6453.net  routing traffic (Gaming traffic) via Chicago and using routing that seems to regularly be affected by congestion , perhaps if they routed traffic correctly  this wouldn't be happening  IMO the congestion is at Chicago

[#10]

Another update to highlight how Level3  can influence the base latency to ubisoft.com  see attachment  that's another ISP's routing to ubi
and here is the same to  one of the hop's just before ubisoft

Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
         IP: 173.241.128.42
  Date/Time: 05/03/2014 21:37:20 to 05/03/2014 21:44:12
Hop Sent Err   PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
 1    77   0   0.0   0   0   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
 2    77   0   0.0  13 330  22  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3    77   0   0.0  13  67  14  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4    77   0   0.0  13  67  15  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5    77  25  32.5  13 306  61  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
 6    77   0   0.0  13  23  13  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
 7    75   0   0.0  13  37  13  ae-120-3506.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.5]
 8    77   0   0.0  13  46  13  GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
 9    77   0   0.0  95 171  99  xe-7-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.106.106]
Destination not reached in 35 hops

Perhaps  someone at plusnet could ask level3 to change their routing to ubisoft , instead of ignoring me , so much for customer service ,or relations,

[#11]

Still looking at it.  I've got someone in my team working on it at the minute. 

[#12]

Hi Deathtrap,
You've said that the game you're having trouble with is Tom Clancy's rainbow six Vegas 2, which platform are you running this on? PC?
Thanks,
Matt

[#13]

Yes it's PC , but the game  is a console port  (Xbox)  below is a reverse tracert to my IP using the AS6453.net looking glass tool, although it uses a different IP range than the one to Ubisoft, it does show a direct route  Montreal NewYork,  the way that they have routed  to ubisoft for several years, until November last year , at around the time that BT retail customers where having issues logging in to ubisoft's uplay  servers , and as a result bt switched peering from tinet to as6453.net ,  
At least both my tracert that shows the direct route and this reverse one both show that the direct/correct route still is operational , but not being used   probably due to a misconfiguration , that no one seems capable of identifying or bothered enough to do anything about it, not aimed at soley at  plusnet but the 2 peering providers  and BT if they have anything to do with it

1  if-0-2.tcore2.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net (216.6.115.90)  8.865 ms  7.982 ms  7.982 ms
     MPLS Label=306112 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
 2  * if-2-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net (64.86.226.14)  24.199 ms if-5-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net (216.6.99.29)  8.095 ms
     MPLS Label=493457 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
 3  * * *
 4  if-5-5.tcore1.NTO-New-York.as6453.net (216.6.90.6)  8.561 ms  8.006 ms  7.911 ms
 5  ae9.edge1.NewYork.Level3.net (4.68.62.185) [AS  3356]  10.413 ms  8.223 ms  8.692 ms
 6  vlan51.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.138.222) [AS  3356]  99.420 ms  101.551 ms  103.075 ms
     MPLS Label=1136 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
 7  ae-4-4.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.141.17) [AS  3356]  89.089 ms  89.388 ms ae-48-48.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.201.49) [AS  3356]  90.152 ms
     MPLS Label=1785 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
 8  ae-42-42.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.137.69) [AS  3356]  93.520 ms ae-44-44.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.137.77) [AS  3356]  88.628 ms  87.978 ms
     MPLS Label=1999 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
 9  ae-59-224.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.142) [AS  3356]  88.982 ms ae-56-221.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.130) [AS  3356]  109.325 ms ae-58-223.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.138) [AS  3356]  81.979 ms
     MPLS Label=1027 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
10  * ae-25-52.car5.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.102) [AS  3356]  90.283 ms  90.116 ms
11  PLUSNET-TEC.car5.London1.Level3.net (217.163.45.250) [AS  3356]  100.905 ms  100.148 ms  99.094 ms
12  te8-1.ptw-gw01.plus.net (212.159.0.241) [AS  6871]  84.902 ms  83.752 ms  82.276 ms
     MPLS Label=319 CoS=0 TTL=1 S=1
13  link-a-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net (212.159.2.145) [AS  6871]  87.009 ms  88.651 ms  89.386 ms

[#14]

Thanks Deathtrap,
I'll get back to you soon
Matt

[#15]

Any further updates on this long running problem that is getting more problematic now that the AS6453.net links are becoming saturated  thus increasing the base latency  and generating packet loss  all the way to the Montreal hop  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net This is occurring on a daily basis but varies in severity  from 4:30pm onwards  till 10pm , and sometimes will be 2am till 4:30am  May BT customers are getting transited over the same route, hence the congestion
This longer indirect route  adds enough latency without the effects of congestion , why is no one  from other peering companies or ISP's complaining about how crap AS6453.net are ? months on and nothing has been done