cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

AS6453.net peering sucks

deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

I have 2 ping monitors running one to the tinet ip before the ubisoft/tinet gw, and the AS6453.net,  and the latency is 20ms or so lower to the tinet IP  although there seems to be a lot more jitter  on that switch, Where as if i run ping plotter  in icmp mode the latency on that switch reaches over 160ms at times,  and a fairly consistent 95ms to ubi Using tcp mode
But  think broadband's routing seems to be better than  the current way I'm routed to it,
AndyH
Grafter
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Well a change was made somewhere last night:


My routing is no longer going via Level3/Tinet Paris:
TRACEROUTE (using port 3077/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  1.27 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  5.77 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag06.plus.net (195.166.128.187)
3  5.47 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.180)
4  5.16 ms  xe-10-3-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.212)
5  5.28 ms  xe-11-2-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.213)
6  5.54 ms  vl-3101-ve-127.ebr1.London2.Level3.net (4.69.202.169)
7  5.44 ms  ae-48-48.ebr1.London15.Level3.net (4.69.159.78)
8  5.25 ms  ae-43-43.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.167.26)
9  4.93 ms  ae-56-111.csw1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.114)
10  4.59 ms  ae-117-3503.edge3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.166.138)
11  4.41 ms  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net (195.219.83.101)
12  97.33 ms  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.130.129)
13  98.91 ms  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.131.1)
14  98.10 ms  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net (216.6.99.13)
15  98.57 ms  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
16  101.42 ms if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (64.86.79.1)
17  97.62 ms  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net (66.198.96.45)
18  116.88 ms 66.198.96.18
19  97.30 ms  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
20  99.94 ms  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-large/909b433df54a8130b019e44df38a727d-18-03-2014.png Tinet IP 89.149.184.74 last ip on the route  that responds to icmp
Currently it is giving pings of 95-99ms  but it may  starts to flap when traffic  levels become higher  because that tinet link when i ping the ubi/tinet  gateway , is the weak link  , you can see the jitter in the ttbqm
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-large/eb805a63b74a844e58607bac76faae5f-18-03-2014.png No change in latency over AS6453.net  again  the hop before ubisoft
Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
        IP: 216.98.48.56
 Date/Time: 18/03/2014 13:12:20 to 18/03/2014 13:54:42
Hop Sent Err  PL% Min  Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
1   998   0  0.0   0     0   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
2   998   0  0.0  13  738  24  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
3   998   0  0.0  13  106  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
4   998   2  0.2  13   87  13  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
5    52   1  1.9  14  317  71  te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net [217.163.45.249]
6   998   0  0.0  13   24  13  ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.120]
7    30   0  0.0  13   17  14  ae-228-3604.edge3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.166.158]
8   998   0  0.0  13   43  13  ix-20-0.tcore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.83.101]
9   998  65  6.5 106  119 107  if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.130.129]
10   998  15  1.5 106  122 107  if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net [80.231.131.1]
11   998  99  9.9 107  168 111  if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net [216.6.99.13]
12   998  12  1.2 105  118 108  if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [216.6.99.46]
13   998  12  1.2 105  126 108  if-22-2.tcore2.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net [64.86.79.1]
14   998   0  0.0 105  128 108  if-3-2.tcore1.W6C-Montreal.as6453.net [66.198.96.45]
15    98   0  0.0 105  199 109  [66.198.96.18]
16    98   0  0.0 105  110 107  msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com [216.98.51.10]
17   995 958 96.3 107 1487 362  lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com [216.98.48.56]
No improvement  Apart from the peak time type latency hump between 2 and 4am missing , which is when i tend to play this game but something was getting switched around by someone, or something was failing , it did show a little increase in bases latency at the time of those red spike, though ping plotter doesn't show the red spikes
We can compare routes allday, but it  is not  going to  restore the lower ping that i had or stop gaming traffic getting routed over some links that are at capacity  or touted around the planet
It has been  3days today , sinve ubi's ddos scrubbing nonsense (which was probably down to the large number of BT retail customers all doing tracerts and pinging their server in the first place) Because Ubi are clueless , and nothing further from plusnet , any thing further  on this ?
mattturner
Grafter
Posts: 246
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎25-06-2009

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Hi Deathtrap,
We've not made any changes on our side. We're waiting for the Ubisoft/Verisign link to come up (it doesn't seem to be set up at their end yet) and our traffic should route over that link directly.
Matt
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

I think maybe some confusion, as the verisign DDos scrubbing centre deployment  was to clean traffic to ubisoft, it isn't something permanent  Ie it isn't their new peering partner  the service verisign provided was an addon to what existing peering they have , the ddos scrubbing bs they deployed  friday /to saturday  just masked the normal peering transit links , this presented an issue for changing things because the route was not visible , everything was  masked by verisign
this scrubbing was switched off on  sat/sun  therefore the threat( False/alarm positive) is over and normal operation resumed   there is no way on this planet that ubisoft is going to fund  DDOS scrubbing costs  over a long period of time ,So   what's stopping you making the changes, make them now and traffic should continue to take the same path  should they decide to implement  this scubbing bs again in the future
Also  who is to say that  if they did use a 3rd peering transit provider( Verisign) that  this would improve on what i have now?  if the past few day where anything to go by It wont give  lower latency,Currently Tinet  is the one that is offering lower latency Sub 100ms 
paulmh5
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 170
Registered: ‎11-04-2011

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Quote from: deathtrap
....make them now and traffic should continue to take the same path  should they decide to implement  this scubbing bs again in the future....

Hi
Even if we do make any changes it won't prevent traffic being routed via a DDoS mitigation platform if thats the only place they announce their prefixes from to the wider world.
Plusnet Staff - Lead Network Design/Delivery Engineer
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

yes but it will or should continue to use the same transit link's as it did before, they just  wont be visible  Why are ubisoft  going to deploy this rubbish DDOS scrubbing nonsense to gaming traffic  yet again, ? I don't believe anyone could be bothered to DDOS them , And i would sooner not be able to connect to their poxy server than have lagg or complaints of it  or no one joining my game because of a high fluctuating ping , If ubisoft had half a clue, they wouldn't have a single server farm for all their games, they would of done what other game publishers have done  like games such as COD4   and plenty of others, they can be hosted  on  independent game hosting servers or the customers own box , this also gives a lot more choice and offers resiliency  unlike the stupid antiquated idea they continue to stick with
AndyH
Grafter
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Hi
Is it fair to assume that the latency for an end user would be roughly an additional 5-15ms (if they are on fibre) over what the latency is from the Looking Glass results?
Also, is there any way to see what changed (if it was the routing) last night in those TBB Ping Graphs that has lowered the latency 12-15ms? Or is it only TBB that will be able to see a change in a route etc?
Thanks
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Tbb would be the ones to ask,about changes in routes or their peering providers that are used for that link, but they (peering providers) aren't going to tell us what they have changed
The tinet latency isn't too bad, aprox 80ms to tbb from Montreal where as the AS6453.net  tbbqm show 100ms aprox  base latency, this used to be a max of 80ms  until someone started routing via Chicago
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

more congestion again tonight no doubt  but AS6453.net is  the better choice for gaming traffic NOT
AndyH
Grafter
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve/prove with those TBB ping monitors? Pinging core routers is not going to give you a true reflection of the actual latency to Ubisoft (which is 10-15ms lower than what your graph is showing). It's like setting a TBB ping monitor for your PN gateway - it will look very messy, but it is the pings to your destination that matter.
TBB's traceroutes go to above.net and then tinet - I had this confirmed from them:
Quote
show route protocol bgp table inet.0 216.98.54.42 terse
inet.0: 490527 destinations, 3377545 routes (489350 active, 78 holddown, 8048 hidden)
Restart Complete
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
A Destination        P Prf   Metric 1   Metric 2  Next hop         AS path
* 216.98.48.0/20     B 170        100 4294967294 >141.136.100.29   3257 22634 I
                    B 170        100 4294967294 >195.66.224.51    6453 22634 I
                    B 170        100 4294967294  64.125.27.149    6453 22634 I
                                                >64.125.27.149
                                                 64.125.27.149
                                                 64.125.27.162
                                                 64.125.27.162
                                                 64.125.27.162
                    B 170        100 4294967294 >64.125.27.149    6453 22634 I
                                                 64.125.27.162
                    B 170        100 4294967294  64.125.27.149    6453 22634 I
                                                >64.125.27.149
                                                 64.125.27.174
                                                 64.125.27.174
                    B 170        100 4294967294 >64.125.27.149    6453 22634 I
                                                 64.125.27.174
                    B 170        100 4294967294  64.125.27.149    6453 22634 I
                                                >64.125.27.149
                                                 64.125.28.97
                                                 64.125.28.97

Level3
Quote
BGP routing table entry for 216.98.48.0/20
Paths: (2 available, best #1)
  6453 22634
  AS-path translation: { GLOBEINTERNET AS22634 }
    edge3.London1 (metric 20020)
      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
  6453 22634
  AS-path translation: { GLOBEINTERNET AS22634 }
    edge3.London1 (metric 20020)
      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
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

AS6453/Tata
Quote
BGP routing table entry for 216.98.48.0/20
Bestpath Modifiers: deterministic-med
Paths: (3 available, best #3)
Multipath: eBGP
    17        18        19        20       
  22634
    w6c-tcore1. (metric 3089) from l78-tcore1. (66.110.10.237)
      Origin IGP, valid, internal
      Community:
      Originator: 66.110.10.134
  22634
    w6c-tcore1. (metric 3089) from l78-tcore2. (66.110.10.234)
      Origin IGP, valid, internal
      Community:
      Originator: 66.110.10.134
  22634
    w6c-tcore1. (metric 3089) from ldn-tcore2. (66.110.10.39)
      Origin IGP, valid, internal, best
      Community:
      Originator: 66.110.10.134
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

I am seeing bigger increases in latency at the same times that they are displayed on  the AS6453.net  they may sometimes not be as severe but they are there never the less, not only  that, but it shows in basic detail that the AS6453.net link gets congested  or is doing something odd at those times
either way  it shouldn't be having any impact on latency
this was one such example
IMO i have shown that there is quite possibly an issue with AS6453,net Peering to Montreal (ubisoft )  that has gotten  a lot worse  since they  changed the routing to go via Chicago 
I notice that Goscomb appear not to use AS6453.net and they peer through level3  to tinet http://as39326.net/lg/klg.php?server=collector&action=show+ip+bgp&args=216.98.48.56
Just an observation , So can routing via tinet be tried or is this not going to happen  despite being told  a short time ago it was going to be tried ?
AndyH
Grafter
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎27-10-2012

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Quote from: deathtrap
I notice that Goscomb appear not to use AS6453.net and they peer through level3  to tinet http://as39326.net/lg/klg.php?server=collector&action=show+ip+bgp&args=216.98.48.56

I think they peer with GBLX/Level3 - which seems to be different:
Quote
3257 22634
    67.16.147.121 from err41.cdg2.gblx.mgmt.level3.net
      Origin IGP, metric 50, localpref 200, valid, internal, best
      Community: 3549:2203 3549:2623 3549:30840 (North American; United States) 3549:31250 (Europe; France)
      Originator: loop0.ar3.CDG2.gblx.net, Cluster list: 0.0.6.3

deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

http://www.globalcrossing.com/network/network_looking_glass.aspx I would say a subsidiary,of level3  or it was  either way it is part of level 3, and until recently im fairly sure  that plusnrt has routed traffic  using GBLX switches , It's probably maybe a service  that an ISP can request from level3 So  plusnet may be able to do something here
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,064
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎23-04-2013

Re: AS6453.net peering sucks

Well it's looking like yet another day  with no resolution in sight, It's only been 4 mths  since i started this thread   Just how long does it take to make a routing change , ?Huh