dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
21

nss_tech
join:2007-07-29
Edmonton AB

nss_tech to Ikarasu

Member

to Ikarasu

Re: Telus Peering.

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.
ruiner3
join:2012-03-10
Canada

ruiner3

Member

said by nss_tech:

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.

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

said by ruiner3:

said by nss_tech:

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.

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

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.
ruiner3
join:2012-03-10
Canada

ruiner3

Member

Its not true. You're either being routed somewhere else first before Toronto (such as Chicago), or the link you're checking is heavily saturated and needs more bandwidth.

More likely its being routed somewhere else first. You don't always get to see what's going on inside the AS as its being routed to the next peer.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

said by ruiner3:

Its not true. You're either being routed somewhere else first before Toronto (such as Chicago), or the link you're checking is heavily saturated and needs more bandwidth.

More likely its being routed somewhere else first. You don't always get to see what's going on inside the AS as its being routed to the next peer.

ROTFL! Sorry, it's true. Their routing here is through Kitchener and on to Toronto or Chicago, where Bell peers again. Geographic distance does not and never has had any relationship to efficiency of routing as expressed by lower pings or number of connections.
ruiner3
join:2012-03-10
Canada

1 edit

ruiner3

Member

Are you for real?

First, light travels at roughly 200,000 km/s in fibre. So take the trip from Vancouver to Chicago, 3500 km = ~17.5 ms each direction or 35 ms. Then you add in the time from Chicago to Seattle, 3300 km or 33 ms. Now look at Vancouver to Seattle at 230 km or 2.3 ms RTT. Just your propagation delay adds around 65 extra ms.

Typically a longer distance link will introduce more hops, which adds transmission delay, and queuing delay for each additional hop on top of the additional propagation delay.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

said by ruiner3:

Are you for real?

First, light travels at roughly 200,000 km/s in fibre. So take the trip from Vancouver to Chicago, 3500 km = ~17.5 ms each direction or 35 ms. Now look at Vancouver to Seattle at 230 km or 2.3 ms RTT. Right there you have a lower ping.

Typically a longer distance link will introduce more hops, which adds transmission delay, and queuing delay for each additional hop.

I am for real. Not to break the laws of physics, but there are are other factors involved. Distance is basically a negligible factor, other factors having more impact. I get a ping of 65 ms on my office connection through Bruce Telecom to Wightman in Clifford; about 70 km. I get 35 ms ping on the Teksavvy server in Toronto, 200 km. away. The reason? Bruce Telecom probably has better peering in Toronto, where Teksavvy is located, than it has to Wightman. Peering and other factors affect ping. Distance, not so much.

pfak
Premium Member
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC

pfak

Premium Member

said by DKS:

Peering and other factors affect ping. Distance, not so much.

I'd like some of what you're smoking ...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La ··· r_Optics

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

said by pfak:

said by DKS:

Peering and other factors affect ping. Distance, not so much.

I'd like some of what you're smoking ...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La ··· r_Optics

Absolutely nothing. Just reflecting empirical data. As it has always been. In the real world, distance is less important than other factors.
Expand your moderator at work
ruiner3
join:2012-03-10
Canada

ruiner3 to DKS

Member

to DKS

Re: Telus Peering.

said by DKS:

I get a ping of 65 ms on my office connection through Bruce Telecom to Wightman in Clifford; about 70 km. I get 35 ms ping on the Teksavvy server in Toronto, 200 km. away. The reason? Bruce Telecom probably has better peering in Toronto, where Teksavvy is located, than it has to Wightman. Peering and other factors affect ping. Distance, not so much.

Yes, for short distances which we weren't talking about. Try reading the thread you're posting in.

You also realize that at each hop that is showing up, your packet can be routed through an internal network where you can't see what is going on either.

Plus a lot of routers process ICMP low priority. So if the router is under load it could be in the queue for longer than a regular packet.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

said by ruiner3:

said by DKS:

I get a ping of 65 ms on my office connection through Bruce Telecom to Wightman in Clifford; about 70 km. I get 35 ms ping on the Teksavvy server in Toronto, 200 km. away. The reason? Bruce Telecom probably has better peering in Toronto, where Teksavvy is located, than it has to Wightman. Peering and other factors affect ping. Distance, not so much.

Yes, for short distances which we weren't talking about. Try reading the thread you're posting in.

If you look at the OP's post, they were pinging a server less than 100 km from Vancouver.