dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2417
share rss forum feed


captainbrew

@teksavvy.com

"Teksavvy Routing Issues (Jan 24th - Present)"

Tracing route to 67.213.218.156 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 ping -n 50 google.com

Pinging google.com [74.125.226.66] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=56
Request timed out.
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.226.66: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 74.125.226.66:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 49, Lost = 1 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 101ms, Maximum = 124ms, Average = 109ms

C:\USERS\SHAUN>ping -n 50 rogers.com

Pinging rogers.com [207.245.252.27] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=118
Reply from 207.245.252.27: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=118

Ping statistics for 207.245.252.27:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 88ms, Average = 36ms

C:\USERS\SHAUN>ping -n 50 46.165.192.93

Pinging 46.165.192.93 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=219ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=215ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=199ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=51
Reply from 46.165.192.93: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 46.165.192.93:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 198ms, Maximum = 219ms, Average = 204ms



PlatooN

join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON

.... you lost 1 packet out of 150, and you ping is slightly high to google?

i don't think that's a routing issue, i think that might be odd DNS on your system.

even then that's hardly a problem!



captainbrew

@teksavvy.com
reply to captainbrew

Tracing route to 67.213.218.156 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.135.251
2 9 ms 11 ms 9 ms 10.125.251.129
3 17 ms 10 ms 14 ms 66.185.90.77
4 10 ms 14 ms 14 ms richmond2.cable.teksavvy.com [69.196.175.66]
5 43 ms 18 ms 16 ms richmond1.cable.teksavvy.com [24.246.55.9]
6 23 ms 25 ms 23 ms tge11-3.fr4.yyz.llnw.net [208.111.134.241]
7 36 ms 33 ms 38 ms tge22-4.fr3.ord.llnw.net [69.28.189.137]
8 32 ms 34 ms 31 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [206.223
.119.63]
9 119 ms 122 ms 123 ms ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.171]
10 135 ms 147 ms 137 ms ae0.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.154]
11 46 ms 47 ms 46 ms ae1.dar01.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.193]
12 87 ms 44 ms 47 ms po1.fcr03.sr02.wdc01.networklayer.com [208.43.11
8.157]
13 139 ms 138 ms 140 ms 67.213.218.156

Trace complete.

Expand your moderator at work


PlatooN

join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON
reply to captainbrew

Re: "Teksavvy Routing Issues (Jan 24th - Present)"

said by captainbrew :

Tracing route to 67.213.218.156 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.135.251
2 9 ms 11 ms 9 ms 10.125.251.129
3 17 ms 10 ms 14 ms 66.185.90.77
4 10 ms 14 ms 14 ms richmond2.cable.teksavvy.com [69.196.175.66]
5 43 ms 18 ms 16 ms richmond1.cable.teksavvy.com [24.246.55.9]
6 23 ms 25 ms 23 ms tge11-3.fr4.yyz.llnw.net [208.111.134.241]
7 36 ms 33 ms 38 ms tge22-4.fr3.ord.llnw.net [69.28.189.137]

8 32 ms 34 ms 31 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [206.223
.119.63]
9 119 ms 122 ms 123 ms ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.171]

10 135 ms 147 ms 137 ms ae0.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.154]
11 46 ms 47 ms 46 ms ae1.dar01.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.193]
12 87 ms 44 ms 47 ms po1.fcr03.sr02.wdc01.networklayer.com [208.43.11
8.157]
13 139 ms 138 ms 140 ms 67.213.218.156

Trace complete.

note your trace is going to chicago then to washington DC. Disable your american DNS and you will get better ping's / routes.

also the ping jumps inside networklayer.com's network which is 100% out of TSI control.
Expand your moderator at work


captainbrew

@teksavvy.com
reply to PlatooN

Re: "Teksavvy Routing Issues (Jan 24th - Present)"

Cool thanks. How would I disable "American DNS"?
Is this done in my router settings?

Thanks.
Shaun


captainbrew

join:2008-05-08
Ottawa, ON
reply to Anon

Umm....very helpful post.
Thanks....

I was asked to post my results here by the owner of a site I've been having buffering issues with.



PlatooN

join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON

said by captainbrew:

Umm....very helpful post.
Thanks....

I was asked to post my results here by the owner of a site I've been having buffering issues with.

post results of ipconfig /all


TSI Alan
Premium
join:2012-11-22
Chatham, ON
kudos:5
reply to captainbrew

If you need further assistance from us at any point, please post your account details in Direct and we can look into it for you.

Thank you.



creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
reply to captainbrew

Networklayer is actually SoftLayer and I'm surprised their Chicago POP has such a jump in ping. Something is wrong with their gear there.


captainbrew

join:2008-05-08
Ottawa, ON
reply to PlatooN

Windows IP Configuration

Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . :
Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid
IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Atheros AR8121/AR8113/AR8114 PCI-E Ethern
et Controller
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-26-18-4A-40-72
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::d34:1bba:c7d4:f912%12(Preferred)
IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.135.2(Preferred)
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : February-03-13 8:10:04 AM
Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : February-09-13 2:42:00 AM
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.135.251
DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.135.251
DHCPv6 IAID . . . . . . . . . . . : 285222424
DHCPv6 Client DUID. . . . . . . . : 00-01-00-01-15-DB-1F-33-00-26-18-4A-40-72

DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 206.248.154.22
206.248.154.170
192.168.135.251
NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled

Tunnel adapter isatap.{86D298FC-1679-4CAD-ABFD-77CD14EF1B3A}:

Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Microsoft ISATAP Adapter
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes

Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 9:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0
DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:0:9d38:953c:4c2:3406:3fff:7a18(Prefe
rred)
Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::4c2:3406:3fff:7a18%14(Preferred)
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : ::
NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled



rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON

Try placing 192.168.135.251 as your ONLY dns server, and let the router/modem handle the external requests instead of bypassing it and going right to Teksavvy.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to PlatooN

said by PlatooN:

note your trace is going to chicago then to washington DC. Disable your american DNS and you will get better ping's / routes.

It is supposed to be going from Chicago to DC. Limelight does not peer with SoftLayer in DC. You're assuming he is using some other DNS server(s) and that won't make any difference.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to PlatooN

said by PlatooN:

i don't think that's a routing issue, i think that might be odd DNS on your system.

There is nothing wrong with the name server used by his system.


PlatooN

join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON
reply to 34764170

yes i did assume that .... and it COULD have made all the different with his route to google, as your DNS will resolve the closest google server to him.

considering his route was crossing half the US, it was a pretty sound assumption too.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by PlatooN:

yes i did assume that .... and it COULD have made all the different with his route to google, as your DNS will resolve the closest google server to him.

considering his route was crossing half the US, it was a pretty sound assumption too.

He was already hitting a server in Toronto.

He didn't cross half the US. It was a poor assumption.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to captainbrew

Of what you have posted the only thing to question is why the latency is higher than it should be. But you didn't post anything about your connection type, location, etc.. The rest of what you have posted is fine.


portshner

join:2013-02-07
reply to captainbrew

I was pointed to this thread by the site as well, SoftLayer says it's a TSI problem, TSI is saying it's a SoftLayer problem - who's problem is it?

It seems like all of us on teksavvy have been having issues with this site (non-teksavvy users say everything is great...)

Tracing route to 67.213.218.156 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
2 151 ms 11 ms 6 ms 206.248.154.104
3 22 ms 6 ms 6 ms 2120.ae0.bdr01.tor.packetflow.ca [69.196.136.66]

4 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms peer1.bdr02.tor.packetflow.ca [64.34.236.121]
5 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 10ge.xe-2-0-0.chi-eqx-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.1
14.37]
6 17 ms 44 ms 16 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [206.223
.119.63]
7 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.171]
8 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms ae0.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.154]
9 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms ae1.dar02.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.189]
10 32 ms 32 ms 36 ms po2.fcr03.sr02.wdc01.networklayer.com [208.43.11
8.159]
11 33 ms 32 ms 32 ms 67.213.218.156

I am on Teksavvy DSL (Bell). Also going through chicago to washington for whatever reason.

At this point I thought it was Soft Layer, but why on earth are our routes going to chicago THEN to washington? Please advise.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by portshner:

At this point I thought it was Soft Layer, but why on earth are our routes going to chicago THEN to washington? Please advise.

Is this supposed to be a bad joke? Packets are supposed to magically jump from point to point?

What site is this anyway? This thread is devoid of any useful information so far.

portshner

join:2013-02-07

1 edit

No, but they aren't supposed to go from Toronto, to CHICAGO, then to Washington. That's like me going to Niagara Falls via Newmarket.


ruiner

join:2012-03-10
Canada

Peer 1 peers with SoftLayer in Chicago not Washington. There is a major exchange in Chicago. Without traces on the other high pings there is no way to tell if there is a problem there either.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to portshner

said by portshner:

No, but they aren't supposed to go from Toronto, to CHICAGO, then to Washington. That's like me going to Niagara Falls via Newmarket.

hockeystreams.com is the site in question.

They can't go directly from Toronto to DC if there isn't a route to get there. This should be common sense.


TSI Gabe
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:7

Chicago, New York and Montreal are pretty much the only major exit points from Toronto.


portshner

join:2013-02-07

Fair enough - What are our options currently? Who's side is the issue on?



TSI Gabe
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:7

I routed around it, it looks better now.


Arcturus

join:2008-04-18
London, ON

PING 74.125.226.66 (74.125.226.66) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=1 ttl=57 time=10.6 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=2 ttl=57 time=11.1 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=3 ttl=57 time=12.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=4 ttl=57 time=18.4 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=5 ttl=57 time=11.4 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=6 ttl=57 time=12.6 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=7 ttl=57 time=12.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=8 ttl=57 time=10.8 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.226.66: icmp_req=9 ttl=57 time=11.8 ms

From my teksavvy connection (to the IP the OP was testing with)

So hopefully is also fixed for the OP.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by Arcturus:

From my teksavvy connection (to the IP the OP was testing with)

So hopefully is also fixed for the OP.

That is Google, nothing changed there.


PlatooN

join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

said by portshner:

No, but they aren't supposed to go from Toronto, to CHICAGO, then to Washington. That's like me going to Niagara Falls via Newmarket.

hockeystreams.com is the site in question.

They can't go directly from Toronto to DC if there isn't a route to get there. This should be common sense.

google also has peering within torix ... which should ALSO make sense.

no need for the toronto to chi to washington router ... which frome the looks of things is what Gabe fixed.

Tracing route to www.google.com [74.125.226.49]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 4 ms 1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 11 ms 13 ms 12 ms 10.125.99.1
3 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms MHAYZ.wbb.net.cable.rogers.com [24.156.143.73]
4 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms kitchener1.cable.teksavvy.com [24.246.55.38]
5 15 ms 15 ms 14 ms 24-52-255-161.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.255.161]

6 16 ms 15 ms 14 ms gw-google.torontointernetxchange.net [206.108.34
.6]
7 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms 216.239.47.114
8 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 64.233.175.132
9 16 ms 15 ms 14 ms yyz06s06-in-f17.1e100.net [74.125.226.49]

Trace complete.