dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1099
SDunused
join:2015-01-13
belgium

3 edits

2 recommendations

SDunused

Member

Is this normal behavior for a fiber optic ISP? (FIOS)

Click for full size
Click for full size
non-peak time vs peak time

when i signed up for FiOS last year they claimed congestion was a thing of the past, i guess i was lied to. shucks =/

when i run a tracert to that 100.41.221.245 it comes off as my 2nd hop but when i run a tracert to google my 2nd hop is my CO equipment, what does that even mean?
why is 100.41.221.245 my 2nd hop only when running a tracert to it
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87

Member

said by SDunused:

when i run a tracert to that 100.41.221.245 it comes off as my 2nd hop but when i run a tracert to google my 2nd hop is my CO equipment, what does that even mean?
why is 100.41.221.245 my 2nd hop only when running a tracert to it

I'm guessing that the location of that Verizon server is close enough to you(NYC or very near) that the route it takes(internally) is much shorter and direct than the route to Google which would need to reach a Verizon edge router that is closest(per BGP) to an external Google server.

BTW, what program do you use to produce those results?
SDunused
join:2015-01-13
belgium

4 edits

SDunused

Member

Click for full size
said by serge87:

said by SDunused:

when i run a tracert to that 100.41.221.245 it comes off as my 2nd hop but when i run a tracert to google my 2nd hop is my CO equipment, what does that even mean?
why is 100.41.221.245 my 2nd hop only when running a tracert to it

I'm guessing that the location of that Verizon server is close enough to you(NYC or very near) that the route it takes(internally) is much shorter and direct than the route to Google which would need to reach a Verizon edge router that is closest(per BGP) to an external Google server.

BTW, what program do you use to produce those results?

MTR and Command Promt for tracert's and dslreports own line quality tests (minus the quality for fios)
the hop marked in red is the 100.41.221.245 IP, something weird must be going on.
since you stated if i run a tracert to it and it's coming up as the closest hop to me yet it's getting 30-70ms around peak time but 10ms non-peak time, really makes me wonder what that hop is..

Tracing route to xe-8-1-2-0.NYCMNY-VFTTP-352.verizon-gni.net [100.41.221.245]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]
2 1 ms 2 ms 75 ms xe-8-1-2-0.NYCMNY-VFTTP-352.verizon-gni.net [100.41.221.245]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to 159.153.114.150 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 19 ms 5 ms lo0-100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-352.verizon-gni.net
[100.12.212.1]
3 5 ms 6 ms 6 ms T1-12-0-6.NYCMNY-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net
[130.81.98.136]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 4 ms 6 ms 6 ms 0.ae1.BR3.NYC4.ALTER.NET [140.222.229.97]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * 15 ms ae-3-80.edge2.Washington1.Level3.net
[4.69.149.142]
8 25 ms * * ae-3-80.edge2.Washington1.Level3.net
[4.69.149.142]
9 11 ms 13 ms 10 ms 4.79.23.202
10 109 ms 108 ms 113 ms 159.153.92.74
11 108 ms 109 ms 108 ms 159.153.114.150

Trace complete.

after doing extensive research i've found the level3 is the culprit of the horrible routing to EA's battlefield servers. those edge2 hops have 20-50% packet loss, i called level3 and they said those ip's are under verizon's contract with them and they see the issue but they require verizon to call in and create a ticket with them and they'd have it fixed in 1-2 days but see as simple as that is verizon will not even come close to performing such a task.

p.s those servers are all the way in california which explains the latency, usually they're around 70ms which is reasonable since i'm in new york but with the issues latency is going up to the 100's

west coast EA servers are using level3 which verizon is having issues with and east coast EA servers are using cogent which verizon is ALSO having issues with.

seems like a never ending cycle of issues when it comes to fios, trouble with capacity and CO's, trouble with peering and malicious throttling not to mention business class static-routing issues on top of it all make one very
un-optimized "fiber" experience.

dianac
Premium Member
join:2014-06-13
Demarest, NJ

2 recommendations

dianac

Premium Member

Wasn't Level3 the source of the Netflix congestion issues last year? I bet Verizon will say their side of the connection is fine and any congestion issues are on the Level3 network.

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

1 recommendation

norm

Member

said by dianac:

Wasn't Level3 the source of the Netflix congestion issues last year? I bet Verizon will say their side of the connection is fine and any congestion issues are on the Level3 network.

First the blame was on Cogent then it shifted to Level 3 but the fact of the matter is Netflix used Cogent, Level 3, TeliaSonera, XO, NTT, and Zayo in addition to others, I'm sure. Maybe all of those companies got together and conspired against Verizon, TWC, and Comcast?
SDunused
join:2015-01-13
belgium

3 recommendations

SDunused to dianac

Member

to dianac
actually it was verizon behind the netflix congestion, they purposely did not maintain good peering with level3 which at the time had a contract with Verizon for those specific hand off's, not maintaining those peering points ultimately created over 95% saturation to those nodes thus creating huge congestion issues on purpose which in result got Netflix to give Verizon a premium to upgrade capacity which should have already been getting upgraded for FREE by level3 since Verizon had a contract with them to do just that. (there's multiple versions to the story but you can believe what you will) personally i would trust level3 and cogent over Verizon any day.

it's all about the money, always has been and always will be.
consumers will just be getting caught in the cross-fire.
PJL
join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA

PJL

Member

said by SDunused:

actually it was verizon behind the netflix congestion, they purposely did not maintain good peering with level3 which at the time had a contract with Verizon for those specific hand off's, not maintaining those peering points ultimately created over 95% saturation to those nodes thus creating huge congestion issues on purpose which in result got Netflix to give Verizon a premium to upgrade capacity which should have already been getting upgraded for FREE by level3 since Verizon had a contract with them to do just that. (there's multiple versions to the story but you can believe what you will) personally i would trust level3 and cogent over Verizon any day.

it's all about the money, always has been and always will be.
consumers will just be getting caught in the cross-fire.

It appears you have personal knowledge of the contractual terms and conditions between Verizon and L3. Can you provide evidence of such?
dfwguy
join:2013-10-24

dfwguy to SDunused

Member

to SDunused
Netflix was no saint in the process either, purposely pushing a lot of traffic through carriers that they knew to be overloaded to try to force Verizon's hand, instead of spreading things around across all the providers they had available. Nothing but a staring contest to see which side would look away first. Netflix lost.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

said by dfwguy:

purposely pushing a lot of traffic through carriers that they knew to be overloaded

Have any reference for this?

v6movement
@pppoe.ca

v6movement to dfwguy

Anon

to dfwguy
said by dfwguy:

purposely pushing a lot of traffic through carriers that they knew to be overloaded

Overloaded because Verizon was not upgrading their side.