dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
15012

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda to damir

Premium Member

to damir

Re: [Internet] Rogers IPV6 (6rd)

Well, I took the final step today and opened an issue with the office of the president. Specifically, I outlined the problem and explained that:

a) There is a problem.
b) Technical support seems unwilling to assist.
c) There seems to be no means with which to report network issues to Rogers.

I'll see what they say.

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

2 recommendations

damir

Member

Good stuff - Good luck.

Hopefully - somebody will respond (properly) to your ticket (issue).

If we can help, let us (me) know.

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda to damir

Premium Member

to damir
Got a call back from the office of the president. They are going to connect me with an "Internet Supervisor". We'll see how this goes.

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

1 recommendation

damir

Member

Nice! good stuff man.

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

Basically back where I started, but maybe an inch or two ahead...

The "supervisor" they connected me to seemed to be a tier 1 supervisor. I'm not familiar with internet structure at Rogers but the person seemed no more knowledgeable than anyone else I've spoken to.

What they were able to do is explain what the tickets that have been opened for tier 2 said.

First ticket I opened: "Slow speed using »www.he.net". This ticket was returned as "not supported".

Second ticket I opened: "DNS resolution error for he.net". I'm in no way clear how this ticket got opened as it did because in my explanations to support I never mentioned DNS. I think the tech who opened this ticket was just completely confused as to what the actual issue was.

The supervisor I talked to did a few things:

a) Amend the second ticket to explain the tunnelling issue. He read it back to me and it seems like it sums up the problem and makes it clear it's a Rogers issue.
b) Explained that the CGN3 is "IPv6 compatible". This is the second time I've heard this but given that Rogers offers no IPv6 service it's confusing. Maybe a sign that some internal training is being done.
c) Escalated the issue again to tier 2.
d) Recommended I talk to "TechXpert".

Just to touch all the bases I talked to TechXpert. The person I spoke to immediately understood what I was doing and immediately indicated he couldn't help with it.

So I'm left now with a new ticket with a better explanation escalated to tier 2.

If they get back to me that they can't understand it / won't support it again I'll have to go back to the office of the president. If that doesn't work I'm out of ideas and can sum it up as Rogers isn't capable of understanding / solving the problem, at least through any channels accessible to customers.

Sigh.

JAMESMTL
Premium Member
join:2014-09-02

1 recommendation

JAMESMTL

Premium Member

A interesting point here is that Damir was not seeing this issue with start's 6rd over rogers network

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by JAMESMTL:

A interesting point here is that Damir was not seeing this issue with start's 6rd over rogers network

May be something to that...

Rogers (Toronto HFC 60/10) to tunnelbroker.net Toronto:

1. pandacore 0.0% 7 1.0 1.3 0.8 3.4 0.7
2. ???
3. 209.148.245.173 0.0% 7 14.1 17.3 8.8 36.6 8.9
4. 69.63.248.181 0.0% 6 23.8 16.8 12.7 23.8 4.8
5. 69.63.249.26 16.7% 6 24.6 27.5 24.6 30.4 2.3
6. 10gigabitethernet2-2.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 6 29.5 44.6 29.5 104.0 29.3
7. 100ge5-1.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 6 37.4 33.7 27.2 40.4 5.5
8. 100ge9-1.core1.tor1.he.net 0.0% 6 27.8 26.5 24.2 31.1 2.5
9. tserv1.tor1.he.net 0.0% 6 30.2 28.8 26.1 31.0 1.7

Note that 69.63.249.26 is a Rogers IP.

So getting to Toronto is slow. I thought Rogers peered with HE.net at TORIX, but maybe not.

That said, this looks like Rogers peers with HE in Ashburn. Great!

I'll use the Ashburn tunnelbroker.net server. However...

Rogers (Toronto HFC 60/10) to tunnelbroker.net Ashburn:

1. pandacore 0.0% 6 1.0 2.2 0.9 5.8 1.9
2. ???
3. 209.148.245.177 0.0% 6 32.9 21.2 12.9 32.9 8.9
4. 69.63.248.185 0.0% 6 23.7 18.6 13.1 24.3 5.8
5. 24.156.144.182 0.0% 5 20.7 22.7 20.7 25.3 1.6
6. 10gigabitethernet4-1.core1.chi1.he.NET 0.0% 5 34.4 28.2 22.0 36.6 6.8
7. 10ge15-7.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 5 47.0 44.0 32.5 52.3 7.3
8. tserv2.ash1.he.net 0.0% 5 33.1 36.3 30.2 45.3 6.3

Lovely. Note that 24.156.144.182 is a Rogers IP, so it looks like Rogers also peers with HE in Chicago,
and for whatever reason, getting to Ashburn on Rogers involves going through Chicago. Strange, because
as above, you can get to Ashburn directly.

Fine then, I'll use the Chicago peer point.

Rogers (Toronto HFC 60/10) to tunnelbroker.net Chicago:

1. pandacore 0.0% 7 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.4 0.0
2. ???
3. 209.148.245.173 0.0% 7 17.2 15.1 11.5 24.1 4.4
4. 69.63.248.181 0.0% 7 12.8 15.9 12.1 21.5 3.1
5. 69.63.249.26 50.0% 7 34.0 32.3 26.8 36.1 4.8
6. 10gigabitethernet2-2.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 7 114.8 84.4 26.4 198.2 61.3
7. 10ge1-2.core1.cmh1.he.net 0.0% 7 36.9 66.1 36.9 153.7 42.5
8. 10ge1-2.core1.chi1.he.net 0.0% 7 40.4 48.3 36.5 86.6 17.5
9. 184.105.253.14 0.0% 6 37.7 37.4 34.5 42.4 2.6

So when you try to get to directly to HE.net's Chicago POP, you go back through Ashburn.

So none of this is terribly useful. Let's look at hop #7 in the initial trace to Toronto. That's HE.net in NYC.
Let's trace to tunnel broker in NYC then, that seems to actually be fairly close to us...

1. pandacore 0.0% 4 0.8 1.6 0.8 3.5 1.0
2. ???
3. 209.148.245.173 0.0% 4 13.9 14.4 12.6 16.4 1.5
4. 69.63.248.181 0.0% 4 11.6 13.6 11.6 14.7 1.3
5. ???
6. 10gigabitethernet2-2.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 4 35.7 34.5 25.3 38.6 6.2
7. 100ge5-1.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 3 30.6 30.6 29.4 31.8 1.0
8. tserv1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 3 29.7 30.6 29.7 31.1 0.7

Nice. First we go to Ashburn.

So unless there is something I'm missing here, I'm wondering if the performance problems to tunnelbroker.net aren't because of some of the curious routing that's going on here.

Thoughts?

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

1 recommendation

damir

Member

I still believe this has to do something with the modem, rather then Rogers - to be honest with you.

Lets not forget that i am seeing the same speed issues with running VPN (PPTP) protocol, it doesn't get past 25mbit (as Rogers 6rd).

I don't think (maybe i am wrong \ long day) we had any 6rd or even HE.net tests on any other modem then CGN3?

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by damir:

I still believe this has to do something with the modem, rather then Rogers - to be honest with you.

Lets not forget that i am seeing the same speed issues with running VPN (PPTP) protocol, it doesn't get past 25mbit (as Rogers 6rd).

I don't think (maybe i am wrong \ long day) we had any 6rd or even HE.net tests on any other modem then CGN3?

I tested on a D3GN at the office. Same problem. Were you testing PPTP to he.net? I think it's a routing or peering issue.
SimplePanda

1 recommendation

SimplePanda to damir

Premium Member

to damir
For comparison, routing to HE.net on TekSavvy:

Toronto:

1. pandacore 5.0% 20 1.6 4.5 0.8 20.3 5.9
2. lo-100.lns03.tor.packetflow.ca 0.0% 20 25.8 14.7 7.8 41.2 9.5
3. ae2_2110-bdr03-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 20 19.4 24.3 7.3 62.7 18.5
4. ae1_2120-bdr04-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 20 17.1 20.9 7.7 85.2 19.5
5. gw-he.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% 20 7.9 16.3 7.7 43.9 10.3
6. tserv1.tor1.he.net 0.0% 20 23.1 22.0 7.9 85.8 19.1

Chicago:

1. pandacore 0.0% 5 4.1 2.1 0.9 4.1 1.3
2. 206.248.154.121 0.0% 5 11.3 11.3 7.9 18.8 4.4
3. ae2_2110-bdr03-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 5 9.7 15.3 7.4 25.7 8.8
4. ae1_2150-bdr04-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 5 7.7 17.4 7.7 31.6 10.0
5. gw-he.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% 5 19.1 16.4 8.9 29.0 8.1
6. 100ge13-1.core1.chi1.he.net 0.0% 5 18.5 25.5 18.0 42.1 10.4
7. 184.105.253.14 0.0% 4 17.9 21.8 17.9 27.5 4.2

Ashburn:

1. pandacore 0.0% 6 14.6 23.2 0.9 55.1 21.6
2. 206.248.154.121 0.0% 6 72.4 97.8 17.8 342.3 122.0
3. ae2_2110-bdr03-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 6 51.0 93.7 29.1 235.9 78.8
4. ae1_2150-bdr04-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 6 62.8 65.8 18.3 134.6 48.7
5. gw-he.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% 6 154.4 56.7 8.2 154.4 52.7
6. 100ge1-2.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 6 115.8 64.2 19.6 129.3 47.0
7. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 6 41.6 62.1 28.4 153.6 45.9
8. tserv2.ash1.he.net 0.0% 5 140.9 80.2 27.0 140.9 42.0

New york:

1. pandacore 0.0% 5 25.1 9.1 1.1 25.1 10.5
2. 206.248.154.121 0.0% 5 13.5 19.8 7.8 54.2 19.3
3. ae2_2110-bdr03-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 4 7.7 49.8 7.7 111.3 45.2
4. ae0_2110-bdr04-tor.teksavvy.com 0.0% 4 10.9 20.8 8.8 40.0 14.4
5. gw-he.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% 4 15.9 26.7 8.0 68.9 28.3
6. 100ge1-2.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 4 27.9 39.2 18.9 81.6 28.6
7. tserv1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 4 18.8 27.6 18.8 52.7 16.7

Everything goes straight to HE via TORIX and then routes as you'd expect.

Really just think Rogers has some issues peering to HE.

WildByDesign
join:2014-09-05
Canada

1 recommendation

WildByDesign to damir

Member

to damir
Interesting/humourous quote from ipv6.rogers.com (cached)
quote:
Rogers is an IPv6 leader in North America.


Anyways, joking aside. I've got my OpenWrt router setup with 6rd now just for testing purposes. The link below is just a cached copy of the original Tunneled IPv6 Access from Rogers page with details in case anyone needs it.

ipv6.rogers.com/tunneled-ipv6-access (cached)
WildByDesign

1 recommendation

WildByDesign to damir

Member

to damir
I didn't realize that I still have a rather ancient DOCSIS 2.0 modem (DPC2100R2) from Rogers.

- Is it possible to request a newer modem from Rogers?

- Is it possible to log into the cable modem IP address to check firmware, etc.?

Thanks,
WBD

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by v6movement :

said by SimplePanda:

Really just think Rogers has some issues peering to HE.

This is a problem on Rogers end. Hurricane peers with Rogers via TorIX and inbound traffic from Hurricane goes across TorIX. Rogers has bungled something up (surprise surprise).

Seems that way. I've got tickets opened with both Rogers and HE on this issue.

Guessing that if anyone gets this solved it'll be HE asking Rogers "WTF?" with their routing to HE. They probably have access to the NOC in some way, support wise.

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

1 recommendation

damir

Member

I did talk to HE about this issue as well, but, they showed me some logs \ graphs \ proofs that there were no issues on their side.

I did pass that information to tech that contacted us here, where he confirmed the same problem - thats it.

No progress since then.

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by v6movement :

said by SimplePanda:

Seems that way. I've got tickets opened with both Rogers and HE on this issue.

I also say that because in the past there definitely was symmetrical routing with Rogers and HE but something has changed on Rogers end. I specifically prodded HE when they first turned up their POP in Toronto (back in 2009) and verified the fact that it was symmetrical; not because I'm a Rogers customer but cared about the performance to their tunnelbroker POP as well as their large and growing transit customer base.

Not sure if it was my ticket with Rogers or my email to he.net or just random but something has changed since this afternoon:

Ashburn tunnel:
1. ???
2. 209.148.245.173 0.0% 7 113.8 27.3 10.4 113.8 38.3
3. 69.63.248.181 0.0% 7 11.1 15.7 11.1 30.6 6.9
4. 64.71.241.110 60.0% 6 40.3 36.6 32.9 40.3 5.2
5. 10gigabitethernet2-2.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 6 43.3 50.4 25.4 91.2 27.7
6. tserv2.ash1.he.net 0.0% 6 24.8 28.4 24.8 34.5 4.1

Chicago tunnel:
1. ???
2. 209.148.245.177 0.0% 3 10.6 10.4 9.0 11.8 1.4
3. 69.63.248.185 0.0% 3 13.6 11.5 9.0 13.6 2.2
4. 24.156.144.178 0.0% 3 21.9 25.0 20.1 32.9 6.9
5. 10gigabitethernet4-1.core1.chi1.he.NET 0.0% 3 24.2 50.5 23.5 103.8 46.1
6. 184.105.253.14 0.0% 3 23.9 23.7 21.8 25.2 1.6

So a lot of the odd intermediate hops have now been removed; you can get to Ashburn without going through Chicago and Chicago without going through Ashburn, last least from Rogers in downtown Toronto.

Performance remains unchanged though; for me tunnel speeds seem hard capped at around 20-25Mbps downstream.

At this point I'm thinking that it's not a routing / peering issue and have to believe that Rogers is indeed shaping this traffic as you originally suggested damir.

Sad.

Perhaps the only recourse is to file a CRTC complaint that Rogers is possibly "managing" this traffic in violation of their stated internet traffic management policy?

Unless anyone else can think of anything?

»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ ··· aut.aspx

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

1 recommendation

damir

Member

Um, didn't have much time lately to spend around here \ do tests, etc.

I don't think contacting CRTC will help us with this at all, as, not majority of people (Rogers customers) use ipv6 \ and i don't think this makes a big case, to be honest with you, that is why .. probably ... we are being ignored, big time.
Expand your moderator at work

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda to damir

Premium Member

to damir

Re: [Internet] Rogers IPV6 (6rd)

Same; TekSavvy's service (at least DSL service) has stabilized completely and is my default route again. Rogers IPv6 performance hasn't been on my mind, at all.

Incidentally I did notice that Rogers closed my last performance ticket again as "not supported".

sashwa
Mod
join:2001-01-29
Alcatraz

sashwa to damir

Mod

to damir
To the top for Kiloohm to post.
kiloohm
join:2014-10-02
Brampton, ON

kiloohm to damir

Member

to damir
Hi all!

I know it has been a while since I provided an update to this issue but year end has been extremely busy on my other projects.

I was able to replicate the speed limit on the 6rd gateway using my CGN3 modem. I can also confirm that this limit is by no mean intentional or a capacity issue on the 6rd gateway.

It is likely a software issue that we will need to address with the network vendor and will likely require a software upgrade. I am trying to pull the appropriate ressources to achieve this but it takes time as the 6rd gateway is used only by a really small number of subscribers and was always offered only as a best effort service.

I will hopefully provide an update shortly and in the meantime may contact some of you directly to perform additional tests.

Thanks again for your patience

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

Thanks for posting. What about the slower performance to Hurricane Electric? I can't seem to get any real performance using protocol 41 at all on Rogers.
kiloohm
join:2014-10-02
Brampton, ON

2 recommendations

kiloohm

Member

I will look into that as well.

I will try to compare the performance of Hitron CGN3 vs a Cisco DPC3845 to see if there is any noticeable difference.

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by kiloohm:

I will look into that as well.

I will try to compare the performance of Hitron CGN3 vs a Cisco DPC3845 to see if there is any noticeable difference.

Awesome. For what its worth I tested at my office on a D3GN and was able to reproduce the slowness with both the 6rd gateway and with Hurricane Electric tunnels.

D3GN is in bridge mode connected to Shibby.

That Shibby router is getting replaced with a 1921 at some point so I'll be able to test it on IOS as well but that wouldn't be for a couple of weeks.
kiloohm
join:2014-10-02
Brampton, ON

1 recommendation

kiloohm

Member

So from what I understand on this problem (and both you and Damir can correct me if I'm wrong), protocol 41 (IPv6 encapsulation) does not work well (speed limited) on Hitron CGN3 and SMC D3GN modems on the Rogers network.

This has not been tested on a Cisco DPC3845 modem yet but has been tested successfully on some third party internet access providers.

Is that statement correct?

SimplePanda
BSD
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

SimplePanda

Premium Member

said by kiloohm:

So from what I understand on this problem (and both you and Damir can correct me if I'm wrong), protocol 41 (IPv6 encapsulation) does not work well (speed limited) on Hitron CGN3 and SMC D3GN modems on the Rogers network.

This has not been tested on a Cisco DPC3845 modem yet but has been tested successfully on some third party internet access providers.

Is that statement correct?

From my perspective, yes. I have tested / used the following combination of:

Modems: CGN3, D3GN - both bridged.

Routers: N66u stock firmware, N66u Shibby, n66u Toastman, Airport Extreme, Mac OS X directly configured via command line, Linux / Ubuntu directly configured via command line.

Providers: Rogers 6rd, Hurricane Electric tunnel broker terminating in Chicago, Toronto, Ashburn and New York.

All combinations of hardware and tunnel provider (6rd included) work equally - in that they never approach anywhere near the speed of the connection and are generally about 20Mbps downstream at most.

I've tried MTU adjustments and tcpdump'ing to see if there is fragmentation issues occurring and I can't see any reason specific to any settings or configuration on my end that is causing this performance issue.

So, while I can't debug beyond my cable modem, the common denominator for me right now is protocol 41 on Rogers.

By comparison, I have tried a SmartRG 505n in bridge mode (50/10 VDSL2) to TekSavvy using various combinations of the above router hardware and have had basically 1:1 IPv4 to IPv6 performance using Hurricane Electric. 50Mbps IPv4 throughput and 50Mbps of IPv6 (tunnelled) throughput.

Of course, TekSavvy's native IPv6 service also provides 50Mbps of throughput and even better latency (as you'd expect).

Others here have also pointed out that, for example, a Bell FTTH 175/175 connection gives almost 175/175 of tunnel performance to Hurricane Electric. I've also pushed hundreds of megabits through an HE tunnel using a node on AWS so it doesn't seem to be an HE issue at all.

Thanks for looking into this!
kiloohm
join:2014-10-02
Brampton, ON

3 recommendations

kiloohm to damir

Member

to damir
Thanks to all for reporting and testing this issue thoroughly.

The problem has been reproduced and is currently being investigated with the appropriate teams and suppliers.

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

1 recommendation

damir

Member

Good to hear that.

Thanks Kiloohm.

shwatkin
Premium Member
join:2007-10-02
Newcastle, ON
Asus XT8
Asus RT-AX92U
Nokia XS-010X-Q

1 recommendation

shwatkin to kiloohm

Premium Member

to kiloohm
Has there been any progress on this over the last 4 months. It seems that IPv6 speeds are still limited to 20 Mbps on the Rogers service. I'm on the Ignite 250/20 with the CGN3ACSMR in bridge mode and can't pull more than 20Mbps down through either 6rd or HE TunnelBroker. Was previously with a Rogers TPIA and could easily get 60Mbps through TunnelBroker.

damir
join:2013-12-12
CANADA

1 recommendation

damir

Member

not at this time, they are still working on this.

ipv6movement
@pppoe.ca

ipv6movement to shwatkin

Anon

to shwatkin
said by shwatkin:

Has there been any progress on this over the last 4 months.

It's Rogers, they're a joke. Don't expect anything from them.