AS6453.net peering sucks

[#1]

I tried your website vs my PN connection - pings were virtually identical

TRACEROUTE (using proto 1/icmp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1   0.73 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   5.09 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183)
3   4.87 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164)
4   7.83 ms  xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196)
5   4.83 ms  xe-11-1-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.209)
6   11.36 ms ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86)
7   12.30 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.82)
8   11.25 ms ae-2-70.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.72)
9   11.49 ms ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
10  88.65 ms xe-4-2-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.107.125)
11  88.22 ms ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
12  88.13 ms mdc-off-fw03.ubisoft.com (216.98.49.143)
13  89.22 ms mdc-mon-smok01.ubisoft.com (216.98.57.134)
I think it's Tinet that need to check their end. There's constantly a 10-15ms difference in pings to those Ubisoft IPs from their two London servers using the Looking Glass:
--- 216.98.57.134 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 77.786/78.116/78.800/0.376 ms
--- 216.98.57.134 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 87.536/88.844/93.541/2.351 ms

Edit: @ deathtrap - I know your problems are not specifically with uplay, but there are also Virgin Media users now reporting problems (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/844795-UK-Connection-issues?p=9573223&viewfull=1#post9573223).

[#2]

You have a base ping to Plusnet of 5ms  Mine is 12-13ms   but as said my ping to ubi via AS6453.net did used to be 89ms  So you would of seen pings of 80-81ms  this would of been  the normal range,  Reading that  ubi forum thread, there seems to be a lot of other things wrong  at ubi's end  a game asking for the licence key to be input again, could be the  pc loosing data , the not being able to log in, that's normal for ubi sucks , their server system has always been broken like most of their games , nothing new the guy got an error message from ubi server, so nothing wrong with connection or peering to ubi ,
Oh i did a small amount of testing last night, and the tinet ICMP responce time dropped to  the same 97-98ms figure  it was with TCP  yesterday, it's  currently at 160ms icmp , So there's so weirdness going on, unless the icmp  starts to lag out when the link get busy   the AS  route showed a short rise in latency, small hump  before .
I think both AS and Tinet have  multiple links  in use between london and Montreal /and usa  Several available  to ubisoft , What i think  is the reason why  I see this congestion  and others with different isp's or tracerts from 3 rd parties don't show this  with a higher base latency  is because  plusnet customers for some reason are getting routed over the already busy links by good old level3 , that is possibly down to what agreement SLA's that plusnet or is it BT  have with Level 3
IMO if  it's gaming traffic that is typically  sensitive to latency  this should be routed  directly  where possible and use the least congested links, If plusnet are already paying  for this type  of service from level 3 then they are not getting value for money IMO
The level 3 link that was direct to ubisoft over tinet  used a gblx switch  and didn't go via paris and back to london, before going transatlantic ,

[#3]

Quote from: deathtrap

You have a base ping to Plusnet of 5ms  Mine is 12-13ms   but as said my ping to ubi via AS6453.net did used to be 89ms  So you would of seen pings of 80-81ms  this would of been  the normal range,

But do you see what I mean - Tinet has two core London routers and there is a difference in ping times.
I tried the AS6453 LG and the ping results were the worst out of the lot (I am just waiting for one of the network guys to say pinging from the looking glass page is not an accurate reflection/test of latency to Ubisoft):
AS6453/Tata
London (HW1)

Quote

PING 216.98.54.42 (216.98.54.42): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=107.703 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=111.962 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=114.851 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=113.382 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=109.354 ms

Quote

PING 216.98.57.134 (216.98.57.134): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=103.281 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=101.191 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=99.094 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=103.151 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=104.150 ms

London (L78)

Quote

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 112/144/272 ms

Quote

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 108/192/220 ms

London (LDN)

Quote

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 104/108/112 ms

Quote

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 116/191/300 ms

London (LHX)

Quote

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 104/106/108 ms

Quote

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 112/168/196 ms

London (Highbridge)

Quote

PING 216.98.57.134 (216.98.57.134): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=95.183 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=101.542 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=94.930 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=102.567 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.57.134: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=107.607 ms

Quote

PING 216.98.54.42 (216.98.54.42): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=115.479 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=116.367 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=100.081 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=114.341 ms 64 bytes from 216.98.54.42: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=98.415 ms

[#4]

Both  those Ubi IP 's you found that responded to  ICMP , both go the long way  AS6453.net VIA CHICAGO  this is what is adding the latency and is obviously a route that gets congested  the ICMP  pings i get are more or less what i get at the last AS6453.net hop  when pinging 216.98.48.56  which is appears to be what the ubi game uses  for actual gaming traffic , it uses other IP's for matchmaking ,custom camo's and authentication / log in  these are
216.98.48.133 (Was used to gaming traffic for a brief period 12mths ago)
216.98.48.134
216.98.48.57
216.98.48.125
216.98.48.102
Some these IP's are routed via Tinet and the others via AS6453.net
I think level 3 could provide a better service to plusnet by routing over better links like GBLX  or their  GTT as well as routing in a direct fashion, If they are unable to do this then perhaps BT need to review their peering agreements as said theirs more than level3  out there
http://www.wipmania.com/trace/cache/216.98.48.56/?c=df67d2945964385 Is representative to what my ping times are  routed via AS6453.net   but again iyt should be under 100ms not over

Target Name: ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net
         IP: 173.241.128.42
  Date/Time: 16/03/2014 18:08:19 to 16/03/2014 18:15:44
Hop Sent Err  PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
 1   180   0  0.0   0   2   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
 2   180   5  2.8  14 282  23  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3   180   1  0.6  13  20  14  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4   180   0  0.0  13  66  17  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5    98   8  8.2  13 314  51  te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.249]
 6   180   8  4.4  13  23  14  ae-51-51.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.88]
 7    39   0  0.0  13  38  14  ae-119-3505.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.1]
 8   180   0  0.0  13  38  14  GTT-level3-2x10G.London.Level3.net [4.68.111.26]
 9   179  11  6.1 133 287 172  xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.74]
10   180   3  1.7  90 186  94  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net [173.241.128.42]

A TCP ping on port 80 , Routing traffic to ubisoft.com like this would provide  the lower latency that i had  before November,  surely this is a possibility , and surely this also highlight s how plusnet are getting shafted by level3 ?

[#5]

Quote from: deathtrap

Both  those Ubi IP 's you found that responded to  ICMP , both go the long way  AS6453.net VIA CHICAGO

For me, both of those IPs are routed the same way - PlusNet > Level3 London > Level3 Paris > Tinet Paris > Tinet Montreal > Ubisoft

Quote

TRACEROUTE (using proto 1/icmp) HOP RTT      ADDRESS 1  0.68 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1) 2  13.12 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183) 3  6.94 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164) 4  8.44 ms  xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196) 5  7.71 ms  xe-11-2-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.213) 6  14.10 ms  ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86) 7  14.29 ms  ae-91-91.csw4.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.90) 8  14.13 ms  ae-4-90.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.200) 9  13.88 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181) 10  157.46 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.74) 11  90.76 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42) 12  90.77 ms  msr-onl-fw05.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.7) 13  93.13 ms  216.98.54.42

Even the 216.98.48.56 IP looks fine for me:

Quote

TRACEROUTE (using port 3077/tcp) HOP RTT      ADDRESS 1  1.39 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1) 2  7.34 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183) 3  5.88 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164) 4  5.22 ms  xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196) 5  5.31 ms  xe-11-2-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.213) 6  11.89 ms  ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86) 7  11.87 ms  ae-71-71.csw2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.82) 8  11.99 ms  ae-4-90.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.200) 9  11.76 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181) 10  162.30 ms xe-4-2-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.107.125) 11  88.81 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42) 12  88.78 ms  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10) 13  90.34 ms  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

The 173.241.128.42 address you did the traceroute to is a Tinet gateway for Ubisoft - I would ignore the pings to that as they will be all over the place.
I could be totally wrong here - but I would put money on Level3 being a preferred (better) transit/peering partner for most ISPs over the likes of Tinet/Tata. Plusnet pay Level3 for a certain amount of xGb/s per month.

[#6]

No doubt they will pay for so much data, But gaming traffic it's self doesn't use a lot of data when compare to other things like streaming TV programs, or P2P or usenet services , old games like the one i play don't ever get updated no patches content ect, and even when there was such available  it was via another source  independent to ubisoft like http://www.gamershell.com/ Or you had to search the ubisoft main web site and download them from there , but they all but abandoned this game shortly after it's 1st birthday ,
Oh and the Tinet gateway  with a ping of 90ms is more or less consistent , This I'm fairly sure gives a good indication  of what the ping time will be to the ubi server  , and it is better /lower than  tinet routed via Paris or the AS 6453.net via Chicago routing,  So IMO it should be used, or at least tried  
http://www.wipmania.com/trace/cache/216.98.48.56/?c=3f1a768ac964550 goes some way to back this theory up

[#7]

Quote from: deathtrap

Oh and the Tinet gateway  with a ping of 90ms is more or less consistent , This I'm fairly sure gives a good indication  of what the ping time will be to the ubi server  , and it is better /lower than  tinet routed via Paris or the AS 6453.net via Chicago routing,  So IMO it should be used, or at least tried

TRACEROUTE (using port 3077/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  1.65 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  15.65 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183)
3  17.06 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164)
4  17.06 ms  xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196)
5  12.14 ms  xe-11-2-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.213)
6  20.24 ms  ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86)
7  22.53 ms  ae-61-61.csw1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.78)
8  23.55 ms  ae-3-80.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.136)
9  23.46 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
10  185.94 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.74)
11  95.67 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
12  95.27 ms  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
13  106.15 ms lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

[#8]

Well here is what i currently have

Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
         IP: 216.98.48.56
  Date/Time: 16/03/2014 19:48:20 to 16/03/2014 20:34:14
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  13 395  22  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3  1000   0  0.0  13  49  14  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4  1000   1  0.1  13  81  14  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5   999 154 15.4  13 433  56  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.181]
 6  1000   0  0.0  13  48  14  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.120]
 7   970   0  0.0  13  76  15  ae-225-3601.edge3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.146]
 8  1000   0  0.0  13  61  15  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
 9  1000  23  2.3 107 136 111  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
10  1000   6  0.6 106 135 107  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
11  1000  66  6.6 108 175 114  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
12  1000  14  1.4 108 147 112  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [216.6.99.46]
13  1000   6  0.6 108 148 112  if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [64.86.79.1]
14  1000   0  0.0 106 151 112  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net [66.198.96.45]
15     5   0  0.0 106 112 109  [66.198.96.18]
16     5   0  0.0 107 113 110  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com [216.98.51.10]
17   999 994 99.5 114 128 119  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com [216.98.48.56]

That's using TCP port 3074 the port the game connects on udp/tcp and there is fluctuation all the time The tinet is more stable, take chicago out of the equation then the 2 would be virtually the same, provided level3 routed directly  ie via a gtt or gblx switch

[#9]

Hmm...
This is me from pcl-ag02:
TRACEROUTE (using port 3074/tcp)
HOP RTT       ADDRESS
1   1.98 ms   router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   25.77 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183)
3   6.62 ms   link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164)
4   5.95 ms   xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196)
5   5.96 ms   xe-11-1-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.209)
6   12.80 ms  ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86)
7   12.78 ms  ae-91-91.csw4.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.90)
8   15.28 ms  ae-2-70.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.72)
9   13.35 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
10  134.62 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.74)
11  93.27 ms  ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
12  91.14 ms  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
13  97.46 ms  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)
Now from ptw-ag04
TRACEROUTE (using port 3074/tcp)
HOP RTT       ADDRESS
1   2.37 ms   router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   10.42 ms  lo0-central10.ptw-ag04.plus.net (195.166.128.194)
3   8.72 ms   link-b-central10.ptw-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.158)
4   9.14 ms   xe-7-2-0.ptw-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.254)
5   8.73 ms   ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.4)
6   9.18 ms   ae1.pcl-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.1)
7   31.44 ms  xe-11-1-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.209)
8   15.60 ms  ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86)
9   15.35 ms  ae-71-71.csw2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.82)
10  15.38 ms  ae-4-90.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.200)
11  15.44 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
12  149.32 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.74)
13  101.74 ms if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
14  107.38 ms if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (64.86.79.1)
15  101.07 ms lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)
Edit: Try a PCL gateway. I am getting 85-90ms pings from there now to lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com

[#10]

Gateways make little if any difference , and i don't want to be routed via bloody Paris and back to London   as i have already compared  our base latencies and yours is lower typically around 5-6ms  mine is double that 12-13ms  and no amount of swapping gateways is going to change that   so the min latency for me is going to be higher than what you are seeing every time, But that does not alter the fact that i used to get 89-90 day in day out  to ubisoft, routing over AS6453.net  before level 3 or AS 6453.net changed that routing, and sent traffic via Chicago , currently my pings to 216.98.48.56 are 108-109 ms
Also another consideration  that comes with swapping gateways is the endpoint onto BTwholesale's network  from exchange /cab , currently  this endpoint is good, no or next to no peak time slow downs ,I'm in no rush to change that  by gateway hopping to only find that there's no significant result  from doing so , not only this but if you were not getting routed this way you would be seeing pings 10ms+ lower than that

[#11]

I set up a couple of TBB graphs for those Ubisoft IPs that respond to ICMP pings (there is a small amount of packet loss):


They don't exactly look great from a gaming viewpoint...
Kelly/the network guys/Barry have explained the lack of specific importance in the geography of the routing. At the moment if you're on a PCL gateway, you are routed Plusnet > Level3 London > Level3 Paris > Tinet Paris > Tinet Montreal > Ubisoft and if you're on a PTW/PTN you are routed Plusnet > Level3 London > Level3 Paris > Tinet Paris > Tinet Montreal > AS6453 Chicago > Ubisoft (this route does not seem to make much sense...)
There does seem to be quite a bit of variance at the moment in the ping response times to those two IPs I posted. Even Cogent (which was as solid as a rock yesterday morning/lunchtime) is now all over the place.

[#12]

Here is the issue i have highlighted to AS6453.net IP 66.198.96.45  Although the actual route taken may differ between tbb and plusnet the two humps are examples of the increases i have been seeing and complaining about, when traffic was routed directly from New York to Montreal ( AS6453.net ) iirc the last  hop before ubi was IP66.86.31.6 , although that over time also showed the familiar humps at times they were not as frequent as what we have now, The  early morning  hump will be more than likely a usa peak time problem, but the other earlier hump is almost surely a British .European issue
AS6453. really need to revert to their direct routing from NewYork or add more capacity over their links, and Level3 should  get onto these peering providers or sort out routes that are not overloaded  , and to go back to plusnet, they should be applying pressure on level3 as by saying everything is ok and fobbing off plusnet and maybe other isp;s they deserve to loose their custom money talks to these idiots

[#13]

What if I was to tell you that the TBB ping route uses only Tinet and not Level3/AS6453.net to Ubisoft?

[#14]

My tbb ping monitor isn't set to ping a ubisoft IP it's pinging an AS6453.net , and not only this but the 2 humps  on that graph , occurred on my ping-plotter pro graph  over a 24hrs period So  it will be doubtful it will use  tinet to AS6453.net 66.198.96.45 if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net is what AS6453.net monitor is pinging not ubi
So  they  tinet  and AS6453.net  have issues but only with some of their links,  not all of them,  also the return path can also cause issues , but is probably less likely to do so
Also do you have a tracert  from TBB to ubi ? Also with those pingable IP's it's also possible that  the servers they are assigned are under heavy use
Plusnet are being quite about this once again

[#15]

I have asked the TBB guys for a traceroute from their server, but I am confident their routing will go directly with Tinet (who is one of their main peers).