dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
27
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium Member
join:2000-01-13

BlitzenZeus to Darksoul

Premium Member

to Darksoul

Re: [FiOS] Who do I need to contact to fix this?

Unless you have packet loss which I don't see here I don't see a problem here.

If you would read the rdns it shows it has to talk to talk to an other provider in CA, Palo Alto CA, which hands it off to San Jose CA, then it's transferred back to Seattle WA. This is out of frontiers hands, and they will do nothing about this. You can't always get the closest routing, and many providers operate out of a few main cities.
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

plat2on1

Member

said by BlitzenZeus:

Unless you have packet loss which I don't see here I don't see a problem here.

If you would read the rdns it shows it has to talk to talk to an other provider in CA, Palo Alto CA, which hands it off to San Jose CA, then it's transferred back to Seattle WA. This is out of frontiers hands, and they will do nothing about this. You can't always get the closest routing, and many providers operate out of a few main cities.

it is not out of their hands, they choose to have only 4 POPs(SFO, CHI, WDC, ATL)
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium Member
join:2000-01-13

BlitzenZeus

Premium Member

Are you so sure about that? I have fios also on the west coast, and don't get routed through California. I get routed through Seattle WA.

Ben J
My spoon is too big
Premium Member
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA

Ben J to plat2on1

Premium Member

to plat2on1
So some education on how Internet peering works. The side RECEIVING the traffic generally pays for it. Thus, the receiving entity generally manipulates their advertised routes to prefer the cheapest provider for them. ISPs generally use the "quickest drain" methodology. We want the traffic off our network as soon as possible (why would we pay to transfer a bit ourselves when we can have someone else do it?). It is very rare subset of conditions that would cause an ISP to override this for outbound traffic. So generally speaking, if your outbound route is cracked out, it's the entity on the other side who's ultimately dictating it, not your ISP.

Also, as anyone who actually logs into a BGP looking glass can verify, Frontier peers in 5 locations: Seattle, Palo Alto, Chicago, Ashburn, and Atlanta, covering our entire footprint with very minimal egress latency (when external factors don't otherwise mess with it).
Darksoul
join:2010-04-17

Darksoul to BlitzenZeus

Member

to BlitzenZeus
said by BlitzenZeus:

Unless you have packet loss which I don't see here I don't see a problem here.

If you would read the rdns it shows it has to talk to talk to an other provider in CA, Palo Alto CA, which hands it off to San Jose CA, then it's transferred back to Seattle WA. This is out of frontiers hands, and they will do nothing about this. You can't always get the closest routing, and many providers operate out of a few main cities.

I'm a gamer. This kind of crap is terrible for my latency (some of my favorite servers happen to be in Seattle) and I don't really appreciate it.

Additionally, I've never had this problem before. I haven't been gaming in a while (last 2-3 months) because I had other things to do, but the routing never used to be like this for me. So yes, I think that it's something they can fix and it's not "out of their hands".

I had the same issue with Dallas, Texas causing my ping to go upwards of 200ms and I talked to frontier and they kept on saying "it would be fixed soon" -- never was. It mostly happened towards the evening hours and not all the time.

That left me with the choice of buying a VPS to setup OpenVPN in order to bypass their routing -- worked wonderfully and my latency went back to what I consider normal.

However, the only cheapish VPS in my area happen to be in Seattle and with this new issue -- I no longer have that option.

So yes, I want them to fix this. I'd like to know who I can contact directly about this -- that way I can avoid the CS reps altogether.

Ben J
My spoon is too big
Premium Member
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA

Ben J

Premium Member

said by Darksoul:

I'd like to know who I can contact directly about this -- that way I can avoid the CS reps altogether.

That would be me. I'll check into this for you tomorrow.
Darksoul
join:2010-04-17

Darksoul

Member

said by Ben J:

said by Darksoul:

I'd like to know who I can contact directly about this -- that way I can avoid the CS reps altogether.

That would be me. I'll check into this for you tomorrow.

Ah, sorry about that Ben -- didn't read your signature.

I appreciate that you're taking the time to look into this for me. I know this VPS host who uses SoftLayer in Seattle and I may end up using them if the routing doesn't get better. It still routes through or/cal, but because SoftLayer has their own network the latency is reduced.
C:\Users\Tyler>tracert explorer.quickweb.co.nz

Tracing route to explorer.quickweb.co.nz [67.228.216.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 50-35-176-1.evrt.wa.frontiernet.net [50.35.176.1
]
3 4 ms 4 ms 3 ms G14-0-6-110.STTLWA-LCR-01.ncnetwork.net [184.19.
242.14]
4 4 ms 4 ms 3 ms 50.34.2.1
5 59 ms 32 ms 33 ms ae3---0.cor02.sttl.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.1.1
01]
6 32 ms 42 ms 32 ms ae0---0.cor01.sttl.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.3.1
37]
7 32 ms 33 ms 32 ms ae1---0.cor02.ptld.or.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.1
53]
8 34 ms 33 ms 34 ms ae0---0.cor01.ptld.or.frontiernet.net [74.40.4.1
09]
9 33 ms 32 ms 33 ms ae1---0.cor01.plal.ca.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.1
58]
10 68 ms 33 ms 33 ms so--0-0-0---0.br01.plal.ca.frontiernet.net [74.4
0.3.150]
11 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms ge9-26-1G.ar1.pao2.gblx.net [64.215.195.45]
12 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms ae12.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com [208.48.2
37.238]
13 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms ae0.bbr02.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.146]
14 28 ms 29 ms 28 ms ae1.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.185]
15 30 ms 30 ms 31 ms po2.fcr01.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com [67.228.11
8.138]
16 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms explorer.quickweb.co.nz [67.228.216.22]

Trace complete.

Ben J
My spoon is too big
Premium Member
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA

Ben J

Premium Member

That destination appears to be instructing Spectrum (AS 11404) via their control communities (»as11404.net/communities.html) to prefer their traffic transit NTT by withholding routes and padding the AS path from a number of better paths for Frontier. For example, Level3 (a better path for us in Seattle) peers directly with Spectrum, but sees that block triple-padded via Comcast instead of direct which makes it worse than NTT. We don't peer with NTT in Seattle, only Palo Alto, Chicago, and Ashburn, so thus the hop down to California.