AnsweredAssumed Answered

Routing issues

Question asked by maven on Dec 20, 2014
Latest reply on Dec 26, 2014 by maven

Hey, I've noticed a downward trend in quality of routing to most servers I plan on now. I realize it's not always going to be perfect but this is becoming annoying. For example I used to ALWAYS ping very well to Chicago servers, because all my data would be routing on Shaws network back east in Canada then passed down to Chicago efficiently. It's not just effecting Chicago, it's terrible to most servers I play on, here's just two examples of how non efficient it is. Seems like most if not all data just gets handed off to Seattle, and peering from there is terribly handled.

 

Here is a tracert of a server I frequent in Chicago. Goes all over the place. It stays on shaw's network until it hits wp (Winnipeg)? then goes back to Seattle? Prior to this routing I would ping 50's.

 

Tracing route to 50.113.21.199.hypernia.com [199.21.113.50]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1

  2     8 ms     9 ms     7 ms  11.7.128.1

  3    10 ms    11 ms    10 ms  rd1ht-tge1-2-32.ok.shawcable.net [64.59.169.25]

 

  4     9 ms    10 ms     9 ms  rd2ht-tge2-1.ok.shawcable.net [66.163.72.162]

  5    14 ms    11 ms    12 ms  66.163.66.222

  6    16 ms    16 ms    16 ms  66.163.67.241

  7    22 ms    17 ms    17 ms  66.163.74.102

  8    27 ms    28 ms    22 ms  rc2nr-tge0-0-0-2.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.74.158

]

  9    86 ms    77 ms    83 ms  xe-8-0-0.sea22.ip4.gtt.net [173.205.63.53]

10    92 ms    85 ms    86 ms  xe-5-0-1.chi11.ip4.gtt.net [89.149.187.138]

11    77 ms    77 ms    78 ms  as23352.chi11.ip4.gtt.net [199.229.229.210]

12    94 ms    77 ms    78 ms  ae4.cr2.ord6.us.scnet.net [204.93.204.87]

13    87 ms    85 ms    85 ms  72.ae2.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [204.93.204.159]

14    90 ms    86 ms    85 ms  as36352.xe-2-1-3.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [50.31.15

4.182]

15    86 ms    85 ms    85 ms  10ge-1.gf146.chi1.colocrossing.com [206.217.137.

250]

16    77 ms    77 ms    77 ms  50.113.21.199.hypernia.com [199.21.113.50]

 

Trace complete.

Tracing route to 69.174.243.25 over a maximum of 30 hops

 

 

 

Here is an example of a server in Texas.

 

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1

  2     7 ms     7 ms     7 ms  11.7.128.1

  3    10 ms    10 ms     9 ms  rd1ht-tge1-2-32.ok.shawcable.net [64.59.169.25]

 

  4     8 ms     7 ms    18 ms  rd2ht-tge2-1.ok.shawcable.net [66.163.72.162]

  5   824 ms    11 ms    11 ms  66.163.66.226

  6    17 ms    17 ms    15 ms  66.163.67.233

  7    16 ms    15 ms    15 ms  206.41.104.1

  8    20 ms    22 ms    21 ms  10ge.xe-0-0-0.sea-wes7-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.

88.30]

  9    19 ms    19 ms    20 ms  10ge.xe-0-3-0.sea-coloc-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187

.89.190]

10    61 ms    98 ms    64 ms  10ge.xe-2-1-0.chi-eqx-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.8

9.26]

11     *        *        *     Request timed out.

12     *        *        *     Request timed out.

13     *        *        *     Request timed out.

14   107 ms    98 ms    97 ms  69.174.243.25

 

Trace complete.

 

Goes from Seattle to Chicago, then Texas? Terrible routing .

 

I guess I'm just asking if Shaw monitors these things? I know for most people gaming and pings don't matter, I understand that, but to me it does matter and I would just like to have the same quality ping's as before. Shaw's routing last year was at the best i've seen it, then things got worse this year, not sure what changed. Wish your peering partners took more pride in efficient routes, but that's probably asking too much


Outcomes