dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2427
share rss forum feed

34764170

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

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

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
Router of Packets
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Gatineau, QC
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
Router of Packets
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Gatineau, QC
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.

portshner

join:2013-02-07
reply to captainbrew

The original OPs traceroute was to 67.213.218.156.

To me, it still looks like it's going through CHI to me.

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 13 ms 14 ms 6 ms 206.248.154.104
3 6 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.
14.37]
6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [206.22
.119.63]
7 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms ae7.bbr02.eq01.chi01.networklayer.com [173.192.
8.171]
8 31 ms 30 ms 56 ms ae0.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com [173.192.
8.154]
9 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms ae1.dar02.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [173.192.
8.189]
10 34 ms 47 ms 32 ms po2.fcr03.sr02.wdc01.networklayer.com [208.43.1
8.159]
11 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms 67.213.218.156

Trace complete.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by portshner:

The original OPs traceroute was to 67.213.218.156.

To me, it still looks like it's going through CHI to me.

And that is expected.

portshner

join:2013-02-07

You stated above that there's exchanges in Chicago, Toronto and New York - wouldn't it make sense to go from Toronto > New York > Washington, DC? (Albeit I don't know much about how this works, just makes very little sense)

This is a traceroute from a toronto IP on Rogers

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 10 ms 8 ms 7 ms 7.28.128.1
3 14 ms 15 ms 11 ms w-PC.wbb.net.cable.rogers.com [24.156.143.213]
4 18 ms 22 ms 11 ms 69.63.249.173
5 27 ms 27 ms 25 ms 69.63.251.154
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 25 ms 30 ms 27 ms ae0.dar02.sr01.wdc01.networklayer.com [173.192.1
8.203]
8 138 ms 29 ms 27 ms po2.fcr03.sr02.wdc01.networklayer.com [208.43.11
8.159]
9 29 ms 29 ms 28 ms 67.213.218.158

Trace complete.

I do not see any routes going via Chicago...


34764170

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

said by PlatooN:

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

SoftLayer != Google

said by PlatooN:

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

The post about going to DC was about SoftLayer not Google.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to portshner

said by portshner:

You stated above that there's exchanges in Chicago, Toronto and New York - wouldn't it make sense to go from Toronto > New York > Washington, DC? (Albeit I don't know much about how this works, just makes very little sense)

That's Rogers. Different network. Different design. Different routing policies. Rogers exchanges most of their traffic out of NYC and not a whole lot out of Chicago. Some with traffic coming from Toronto exchange most out of Chicago. Telus for example has most of their traffic out of Chicago. Bell tends to split across the two cities depending on the destination network.

Also BGP has no concept of latency across a route. It can't make routing decisions like that.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to captainbrew

WTF?! I think I've got the worst route and pings of all....

See this illustration:


And the test@test shows this:


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by MrMazda86:

WTF?! I think I've got the worst route and pings of all....

See this illustration:


And the test@test shows this:

Different issue. You're on DSL and connected via an overloaded AGAS link from the looks of it.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

Yes... That is correct. I was just horrified when I saw the stats because of how high they are.



PlatooN

join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON
reply to MrMazda86

said by MrMazda86:

WTF?! I think I've got the worst route and pings of all....

See this illustration:


And the test@test shows this:

yeah that is an overloaded AGAS link, but i have a bit of a side observation.

I know in another post you made you said you have modem -> switch for various static IP's.

is 173.246.156.225 (i assume it is based on the .cpe. in your rDNS entry) your main router wan IP? if so I would be looking into the 100ms latency between your switch and modem, cause that's ugly!

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

1 edit

Yes... the .225 address is the modem. I'm going to try changing it out for a Comtrend CT-5072T to see what kind of a difference that it yields.





(EDIT: I have just double checked with the Comtrend CT-5072-T modem and the results are unbelievable in terms of the difference between this modem and the Thompson SpeedTouch 516. I'm fairly certain that the result had to do with the way that LAN - LAN access was being handled in the original Thompson SpeedTouch 516 and the fact that I do have a lot of such traffic that takes place. This modem seems to allow the packets to flow through the switch, thus bypassing the internet line completely, whereas the SpeedTouch didn't do that.)


This is what the route to TekSavvy now looks like. Notice the difference when these packets are sent through the modem now. The same amount of LAN traffic still exists, just not through the modem directly anymore. It all stays switch side now.



theman
Premium
join:2000-08-02
Dallas, TX
reply to captainbrew

It looks like this issue is being worked from the TSI side; however, if anyone has any further issues that warrant attention from the SoftLayer side, we'd be happy to take a look.

Either post here and/or shoot me a PM and I'll take a look at the route to/from us. We also offer a public looking glass with latency figures if you're interested (latency figures are a rolling 5 minute average).

»lg.softlayer.com/
--
Director of Engineering -- SoftLayer Technologies, Inc.