dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
466
share rss forum feed

pat054

join:2005-09-21
Glendale, AZ

[Internet] Why the difference between VPN and non VPN paths?

I'm having disconnects and poor quality streaming video from my office in Phoenix to my office in Woodinville, WA (near Seattle).

However, if I connect to my VPN server at another location in Seattle (then to Woodinville), NO disconnects, perfect streaming quality, etc.

So, I did three pathpings, where I observe that my "non VPN" (through Chicago?) path has several more hops than the VPN path. Also, 5% to 10% packet loss on the "non VPN" path. No packet loss on the VPN path.

Also, as another test, pathpings from Yakima, WA to Woodinville, WA have much faster pings and no packet loss.

My question - Why is path through the Seattle VPN working without packet loss? I would assume, that since the last few hops to Woodinville are the same (whether the VPN or non VPN route), that there would be the same packet loss (or no loss) in both cases?

Thanks…

1. (COX TO FRONTIER) - Phoenix to Woodinville, WA (about 10 mi east of Seattle) -

Reply from 50.46.xxx.xx: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=50

3 172.21.1.68
4 70.169.75.248
5 70.169.75.153
6 chgobprj01-ae2.0.rd.ch.cox.net [68.1.0.216]
7 br01.chcg.il.frontiernet.NET [206.223.119.46]
8 ae2---0.cor01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.4.137]
9 ae1---0.cor01.lkvl.mn.frontiernet.net [74.40.5.49]
10 ae0---0.cor01.mond.mn.frontiernet.net [74.40.5.54]
11 xe-11-0-0--0.cor02.sttl.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.5.46]
12 ae0---0.cor01.sttl.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.3.137]
13 ae0---0.car01.rdmd.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.1.154]
14 50.34.2.150
7/ 100 = 7%
15 static-50-46-xxx-xx.evrt.wa.frontiernet.net [50.46.xxx.xx]

2. (COX TO VPN TO FRONTIER) - Phoenix to Woodinville, WA

4 72.215.229.22
5 70.169.75.157
6 68.1.5.137
7 eqix.lsan.twtelecom.net [206.223.123.36]
8 sea1-ar1-xe-0-0-0-0.us.twtelecom.net [66.192.245.242]
9 66-194-yy-yyy.static.twtelecom.net [66.194.yy.yyy]
10 * * *

3. (CHARTER TO FRONTIER) - Yakima, WA (about 120 mi SE of Seattle) to Woodinville, WA -

Reply from 50.46.xxx.xx: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=54

3 dtr01yakmwa-tge-0-0-0-5.yakm.wa.charter.com [96.34.105.220]
4 bbr01yakmwa-bue-1.yakm.wa.charter.com [96.34.105.230]
5 bbr01sttlwa-bue-2.sttl.wa.charter.com [96.34.0.64]
6 prr01sttlwa-bue-1.sttl.wa.charter.com [96.34.3.29]
7 Frontiernet.net [198.32.134.5]
8 ae2---0.cor01.sttl.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.5.121]
9 ae0---0.car01.rdmd.wa.frontiernet.net [74.40.1.154]
10 50.125.68.242
(NO PACKET LOSS)
11 static-50-46-xxx-xx.evrt.wa.frontiernet.net [50.46.xxx.xx]


Ben J
Triple Play Architect
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:9
You are assuming the return path is the same as the forward path. You need to run traceroutes in both directions to get a more complete picture.


darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
Isn't asymmetrical routing undesirable for audio and video applications? (Not sure but I thought I read something about it once upon a time...)
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬