Telus → Telus Peering.

I am thinking about getting TELUS internet.
I have one concern about the ping however. I did a traceroute (Don't have them saved) to some servers to Seattle and ping was around 40-75.
I am a bit concerned about this. When will TELUS peer with big providers such as PEER1 to fix this?
Here is a speedtest result from a friend of mine who has Optik 15
»www.speedtest.net/result ··· 2170.png

»www.speedtest.net/result ··· 1988.png

Its not the best at times but you get that with any provider. Whether its better with Telus or Shaw I don't know. It most likely depends on what you're connecting to.

I will say that seattle.voip.ms was pinging 200 ms for a while, then it went down to 120+. Now its down to 12ish. It seems to have gotten better for me in that last while.

o.O 6.5MB/s oh my i wish i had that

Impressive. Thanks for this test!

Comparable between Novus and TELUS, here.

TELUS

gw:/root # traceroute -i eth1 www.peer1.net
traceroute to www.peer1.net (72.51.24.82), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  10.31.198.1 (10.31.198.1)  7.387 ms   6.952 ms   6.088 ms
 2  173.182.212.86 (173.182.212.86)  5.975 ms   5.818 ms   5.646 ms
 3  204.239.129.213 (204.239.129.213)  5.451 ms   10.750 ms   10.771 ms
 4  10ge.xe-5-0-0.van-spenc-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.89.205)  10.554 ms   9.579 ms   8.780 ms
 5  72.51.24.82 (72.51.24.82)(H!)  8.727 ms (H!)  7.650 ms (H!)  7.458 ms
gw:/root # traceroute -i eth1 wowrack.com
traceroute to wowrack.com (216.176.188.92), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  10.31.198.1 (10.31.198.1)  8.103 ms   7.182 ms   6.037 ms
 2  204.225.243.18 (204.225.243.18)  9.892 ms   9.782 ms   9.957 ms
 3  sea-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net (63.146.27.225)  10.819 ms   10.874 ms   9.858 ms
 4  * * *
 5  67.129.97.131 (67.129.97.131)  10.904 ms   10.760 ms   10.617 ms
 6  core0-p4.tuk.wowrack.net (216.244.88.2)  13.037 ms   12.643 ms   12.766 ms
 7  dist0-p2.tuk.wowrack.net (216.244.88.10)  13.095 ms   12.791 ms   12.870 ms
^C
gw:/root # traceroute -i eth1 gw.pfak.org
traceroute to gw.pfak.org (204.14.120.66), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  10.31.198.1 (10.31.198.1)  6.567 ms   5.901 ms   5.759 ms
 2  75.154.217.103 (75.154.217.103)  9.610 ms   9.927 ms   9.809 ms
 3  te7-4.ccr02.sea02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.45)  11.281 ms   11.195 ms   9.792 ms
 4  te2-8.ccr02.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.85.185)  10.169 ms te4-8.ccr02.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.81.113)  9.977 ms te9-3.ccr02.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.82.37)  11.096 ms
 5  te4-2.ccr01.sea03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.146)  10.188 ms   10.431 ms   10.545 ms
 6  Internap-Network-Services.demarc.cogentco.com (38.104.124.82)  12.131 ms   12.014 ms   11.854 ms
 7  border2-bbnet2.sea.pnap.net (63.251.160.78)  11.124 ms   10.830 ms border2.te12-1-bbnet1.sea.pnap.net (63.251.160.7)  10.614 ms
 8  farreachnet-2.border2.sea.pnap.net (206.253.223.190)  10.159 ms   11.274 ms   11.555 ms
 9  216.18.239.26 (216.18.239.26)  10.016 ms   9.627 ms   10.171 ms
10  gw.pfak.org (204.14.120.66)  10.227 ms   10.599 ms   10.894 ms
gw:/root # traceroute -i eth1 www.microsoft.com
traceroute to www.microsoft.com (65.55.57.27), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  10.31.198.1 (10.31.198.1)  7.007 ms   6.095 ms   5.704 ms
 2  154.11.10.230 (154.11.10.230)  10.877 ms   9.970 ms   10.621 ms
 3  * * *
 4  207.46.44.69 (207.46.44.69)  15.557 ms   16.391 ms   16.278 ms
 5  * xe-0-0-0-0.co1-96c-1b.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.33.179)  13.989 ms   14.071 ms
^C
 

Novus

gw:/root # traceroute -i eth2 www.peer1.net
traceroute to www.peer1.net (72.51.24.82), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  64-46-15-1.quebec-gw.novuscom.net (64.46.15.1)  0.340 ms   0.338 ms   0.369 ms
 2  216-19-176-125.stc.novuscom.net (216.19.176.125)  0.324 ms   0.332 ms   0.368 ms
 3  64.69.67.66 (64.69.67.66)  0.315 ms   0.516 ms   0.652 ms
 4  10ge.xe-5-0-0.van-hc21e-cor-1.peer1.net (216.187.88.121)  0.599 ms   0.344 ms   0.402 ms
 5  72.51.24.82 (72.51.24.82)(H!)  0.670 ms (H!)  0.472 ms (H!)  0.686 ms
gw:/root # traceroute -i eth2 wowrack.com
traceroute to wowrack.com (216.176.188.92), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  64-46-15-1.quebec-gw.novuscom.net (64.46.15.1)  0.238 ms   0.354 ms   0.366 ms
 2  216-19-176-125.stc.novuscom.net (216.19.176.125)  0.375 ms   0.414 ms   0.378 ms
 3  10gigabitethernet1-3.core1.sea1.he.net (206.81.80.40)  4.836 ms   4.911 ms   15.545 ms
 4  cr2-sea-b-p250.bb.spectrumnet.us (206.81.80.56)  5.224 ms   4.991 ms   5.173 ms
 5  WOWRack-TUK-10000M.demarc.spectrumnet.us (216.243.28.250)  5.674 ms   5.622 ms   5.475 ms
 6  core0-p5.tuk.wowrack.net (216.244.88.34)  5.828 ms   5.687 ms   5.803 ms
 7  dist0-p2.tuk.wowrack.net (216.244.88.10)  5.942 ms   6.352 ms   6.095 ms
^C
gw:/root # traceroute -i eth2 gw.pfak.org
traceroute to gw.pfak.org (204.14.120.66), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  64-46-15-1.quebec-gw.novuscom.net (64.46.15.1)  0.298 ms   0.334 ms   0.330 ms
 2  216-19-176-125.stc.novuscom.net (216.19.176.125)  0.323 ms   0.382 ms   0.363 ms
 3  64.69.67.113 (64.69.67.113)  0.548 ms   0.478 ms   0.387 ms
 4  10ge-xe-0-1-0.van-spenc-dis-1.peer1.net (216.187.115.130)  0.371 ms   0.409 ms   0.656 ms
 5  10ge.xe-1-0-0.sea-wes7-dis-1.peer1.net (216.187.88.30)  4.881 ms   5.002 ms   4.856 ms
 6  allhostshop.com (206.81.80.142)  21.463 ms   20.558 ms   19.909 ms
 7  216.18.239.26 (216.18.239.26)  5.117 ms   5.138 ms   5.000 ms
 8  gw.pfak.org (204.14.120.66)  5.109 ms   4.968 ms   4.921 ms
gw:/root # traceroute -i eth2 www.microsoft.com
Note: the -i and -I options were exchangedfor compability with LBL traceroute
Use -I for ICMP, and -i <ifname> to specify the interface name
traceroute to www.microsoft.com (65.55.57.27), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  64-46-15-1.quebec-gw.novuscom.net (64.46.15.1)  0.360 ms   0.357 ms   0.385 ms
 2  216-19-176-125.stc.novuscom.net (216.19.176.125)  0.363 ms   0.390 ms   0.385 ms
 3  six1.microsoft.com (206.81.80.30)  14.613 ms   13.471 ms   12.341 ms
 4  207.46.44.69 (207.46.44.69)  8.957 ms   9.059 ms   8.889 ms
 5  xe-0-0-0-0.co1-96c-1b.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.33.179)  26.236 ms   25.095 ms 10.22.8.14 (10.22.8.14)  8.937 ms
 6  10.22.8.10 (10.22.8.10)  9.074 ms * *
^C
 

idk i seem to have more ping then with friends with shaw... but shaw in my area is terrible so i stick with telus..

heres my speed test. i ping about the same maybe 5-8 more ms

And anything below 80 ms you won't notice at all...

Really? I can certainly tell >30ms on SSH, Remote Desktop and most FPS. You're full of it. Source for your claim, please

Active use. And peering won't make one iota of difference. Ping can change anywhere between source and end point. Always has been that way on the internet and always will be. Further discussion, where you shared your opinion, here: »[BC] My games suck because of high ping, what can I do about it?

Ping being variable has nothing to do with it being noticeable or not.

To the OP: your friend is most likely on an ASDL line using interpolation which can add quite a bit to the ping. VDSL doesn't have this problem, and I remember some of the Telus techs here saying there are optional lower latency profiles for ADSL that they can switch you to.

She is on Optik High Speed 15 with a Actiontech V1000H.

Which is an ADSL2+ profile, usually.

Telus's peering is generally bad. I realize sometimes it's not really telus's fault but it could be a lot better.

Here is a seattle server I play frequently on, and im from B.C.

Tracing route to 50.22.184.114-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.22.184.114]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms d142-179-56-1.bchsia.telus.net [142.179.56.1]
3 29 ms 30 ms 31 ms 173.182.196.2
4 52 ms 53 ms 53 ms 75.154.217.78
5 54 ms 53 ms 112 ms eqix-ix.softlayer.com [198.32.176.207]
6 56 ms 54 ms 54 ms ae3.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.240]
7 69 ms 69 ms 69 ms ae0.bbr02.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.146]
8 77 ms 72 ms 70 ms ae1.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.185]
9 71 ms 70 ms 71 ms po2.fcr02.sr03.sea01.networklayer.com [67.228.11
8.227]
10 69 ms 70 ms 70 ms 50.22.184.114-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.2
2.184.114]

Trace complete.

I disagree when people think ping's don't matter and aren't noticeable. I think a lot depends on the actual game and how the netcode is. Lower is always better, no matter what, obviously.

My tracert to that server on Shaw.

Tracing route to 50.22.184.114-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.22.184.114]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms Router [192.168.1.1]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 13 ms 15 ms 15 ms tl2st.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.149.141]
4 17 ms 11 ms 11 ms rc2wh-tge0-2-2-0.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.125
]
5 19 ms 15 ms 14 ms 66.163.69.181
6 36 ms 34 ms 35 ms rc2sj-pos6-0-0.cl.shawcable.net [66.163.77.70]
7 35 ms 35 ms 34 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.sjc01.networklayer.com [206.223
.116.176]
8 34 ms 35 ms 35 ms ae0.bbr02.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.146]
9 34 ms 33 ms 33 ms ae1.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.185]
10 34 ms 34 ms 35 ms po2.fcr02.sr03.sea01.networklayer.com [67.228.11
8.227]
11 35 ms 34 ms 35 ms 50.22.184.114-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.2
2.184.114]

Trace complete.

40-70 ping is fine and your friend's speedtest had 29ms to Seattle. Your friend being in the lower mainland very likely will have different routing than a Telus user elsewhere. Speedtest servers are more likely to be on a far faster connection, and can handle more traffic faster, than your average game server. Most people who know what peering is (and I suspect you do since you mentioned PEER1) knows that there is nothing that an end user can do to get *ANY* ISP to peer with specific companies or networks. If you are concerned with the ping to a single city or a single server, go with whatever provider meets your needs best.

Here's mine, I'm in Vancouver on Telus as well. Looks like I'm one less hop than you though which causes 20ms more time.

Tracing route to 50.22.184.114-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.22.184.114]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

3 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms 204.225.244.101
4 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms eqix-ix.softlayer.com [198.32.176.207]
5 33 ms 32 ms 31 ms ae3.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.240]
6 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms ae0.bbr02.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.146]
7 48 ms 48 ms 48 ms ae1.dar01.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.143]
8 50 ms 49 ms 48 ms po1.fcr02.sr03.sea01.networklayer.com [67.228.11
8.225]
9 50 ms 50 ms 49 ms 50.22.184.114-static.reverse.softlayer.com [50.2
2.184.114]

Trace complete.

What's really messed up is that for some reason it's routed to Toronto on 204.225.244.101 (»www.geobytes.com/IpLocat ··· .244.101) and then New York on 198.32.176.207 (»www.geobytes.com/IpLocat ··· .176.207) and then goes from there to San Jose. The reason it goes to NY from TO is the right thing for SL to do though as that's probably the closest node to TO. I have no idea why Telus decides to send West Coast traffic through Toronto, it's mind boggling.

After reviewing it, the main reason for an extra 20ms appears to be this part where it's hitting different nodes for some reason:

Shaw
7 35 ms 35 ms 34 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.sjc01.networklayer.com [206.223
.116.176]
8 34 ms 35 ms 35 ms ae0.bbr02.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.146]

Telus
5 33 ms 32 ms 31 ms ae3.bbr01.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.240]
6 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms ae0.bbr02.wb01.sea02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.146]

I still think if Telus came around and manned up to joining SIX in Seattle, they could really improve their West Coast routing:

»www.seattleix.net/partic ··· ants.htm

I got 30ms right off the hop, for real.

Tracing route to 68.232.177.238.choopa.net [68.232.177.238]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 28 ms 28 ms 28 ms d207-216-16-254.bchsia.telus.net [207.216.16.254]

@WhosTheBosch > Don't trust the Geolocation information completely. Some sites only update it once in 30 days and there is no guarantee it's accurate. Geobyte's website is the only one of the half dozen others I tried that shows wrong and I'm suspecting outdated information.

204.225.244.101 comes up as:
- InfoSniper: a Telus Canadian IP without a location assigned
- ip2location.com, ipligence.com, freegeoip.net all show the IP as Burnaby, BC

As for the one you list as New York (198.32.176.207), InfoSniper and 3 other Geolocate site list it as Marina Del Ray, California, and two list it as Palo Alto, California.

It looks like your connection didn't go east before it went south based on the geo-location sites with the consistent results.

Ya, I forgot to put a warning on there about the possibility of that being outdated information. It gets annoying when something isn't real time these days!

What's really sad is they have a presence in the Westin Building already. All they would need to do is pay for a port, and hook into the SIX patch panel. Plus setting up the policies on their router.

$6000 to setup the port and pay for the hardware, plus a few man hours to cover running the line and setting up policies. No monthly fees. Wtf Telus?

They have enough money already and more then capable hardware possibly. Maybe one of us should start a petition or something .

A petition would be a waste of time. The percentage of people that are worried about pings and routing is tiny for any ISP. The vast majority only care if their internet works and as a result, the needs of the many are going to far outweigh the needs of the extreme few in any business decisions whether it's an ISP or any other business.

Both Shaw and TELUS are kind of sad.

gw:/root # traceroute -i eth2 50.22.184.114
Note: the -i and -I options were exchangedfor compability with LBL traceroute
Use -I for ICMP, and -i <ifname> to specify the interface name
traceroute to 50.22.184.114 (50.22.184.114), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets using UDP
 1  64-46-15-1.quebec-gw.novuscom.net (64.46.15.1)  0.302 ms   0.334 ms   0.387 ms
 2  216-19-176-125.stc.novuscom.net (216.19.176.125)  0.390 ms   0.481 ms   0.399 ms
 3  72.51.24.189 (72.51.24.189)  0.657 ms   0.506 ms   0.395 ms
 4  10ge-xe-0-1-0.van-spenc-dis-1.peer1.net (216.187.115.130)  0.658 ms   0.485 ms   0.402 ms
 5  10ge.xe-1-0-0.sea-wes7-dis-1.peer1.net (216.187.88.30)  4.874 ms   4.999 ms   4.867 ms
 6  te1-5.bbr01.wb01.sea01.networklayer.com (206.81.80.140)  5.001 ms   4.852 ms   5.002 ms
 7  ae0.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.159)  6.600 ms ae0.dar01.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.199)  23.865 ms ae0.dar02.sr01.sea01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.159)  5.470 ms
 8  po2.fcr02.sr03.sea01.networklayer.com (67.228.118.227)  5.490 ms   5.393 ms po1.fcr02.sr03.sea01.networklayer.com (67.228.118.225)  5.385 ms
 9  * * *
 

Anyone have a Teksavvy or other wholesaler able to post pings?

I'm interested in the comparisson. I know when I was with Teksavvy before, they had way better pings - Now theyre way larger, but IIRC, they had peering agreements with all the major providers.

You'd think the Major ISPS would offer a higher quality of service... Shaw was always better than Telus for me, but even shaw seemed kind of slow. Then again... Idont do much FPS, I was basing it on when I used to play world of warcraft ping >_>

ISPs try to offer a more reliable quality of service for the majority of clients. Ping on a game server is relative. It is going to depend where in the world it is and in many cases how busy it and the various paths to it are as well. If the hardcore gamers were in the majority of users, it is possible there would be a larger focus on ping. At this point, the focus will remain on stability. Try asking again after everyone and their grandparents start playing CoD or some other real game and all become as obsessed with ping as the significant minority are right now, then you might get an ISP to do something.

I found this!
»aurora.on.tac.net/

Telus West
round-trip min/avg/max = 40/40/44 ms

Telus East
round-trip min/avg/max = 76/79/80 ms

Both TekSavvy and Novus use Peer1 for the bulk of their upstream.

Like stated, they all don't care much about pings or routes. Only latency sensitivity applications really need the lowest latency possible and games fall under that. No ISP cares about your precious ping in games. With that being said, both Shaw and Telus had terrible routes at times. A lot of it being with who the connect is. Overall, since the switch back to Shaw Biz, my routes have improved compared to my Optik. Take it for what it is.

Seriously? Routing packets across the country to go next door is more stable and reliable than peering somewhere closer?

More like they would rather do the bare minimum to provide a qos that enough of their customer base is happy with.

Yes, as weird as that sounds, it is true. Much of my traffic on Bell is routed through Chicago. And it's fast. I get better pings to Chicago than I do to Toronto, although the physical distance is twice as far.