JeffinSmyrna
join:2004-06-26
Smyrna, TN
 ·Comcast
| High Latency and online Chat's refusal to acknowledge a prob
I play Wow and for the last week, latency has been HORRIBLE. I tried to talk to online chat support but it went no where fast. Can you assist? Here is a copy of the transcript:
chat id : 9bc5dd41-1f63-4e64-b255-4956b0f82f8f
Problem : High latency
Jeff > High latency
Shera.26087 > Hi, Jeff!
Shera.26087 > I am happy to have a chance to assist you with your concern. How are you doing today?
Jeff_ > Im an online gamer and the past week I have noticed that my latency to the game servers have made it so my gaming is unplayable.
Shera.26087 > I am really sorry to know that.
Shera.26087 > Jeff, have you tried to update your system when you experienced high latencies?
Jeff_ > update my system?
Jeff_ > Tracing route to 206.16.147.36 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms 68.85.135.25
3 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms te-8-2-ar01.nashville.tn.nash.comcast.net [68.85
.174.17]
4 10 ms 11 ms 14 ms te-9-2-ur01.goodslettvll.tn.nash.comcast.net [68
.86.148.61]
5 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms te-0-3-0-1-cr01.nashville.tn.ibone.comcast.net [
68.86.90.133]
6 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms pos-1-8-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net [68
.86.85.17]
7 34 ms 35 ms 35 ms vlan549.icore2.dtx-dallas.as6453.net [206.82.142
.5]
8 40 ms 35 ms 35 ms vlan6.icore1.dtx-dallas.as6453.net [209.58.47.13
]
9 28 ms 28 ms 29 ms 192.205.35.57
10 178 ms 174 ms 180 ms cr2.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.138.110]
11 174 ms 181 ms 173 ms cr1.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.28.173]
12 182 ms 173 ms 175 ms cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.1.174]
13 178 ms 172 ms 172 ms cr2
Jeff_ > .n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.3.37]
14 181 ms 172 ms 176 ms cr1.cb1ma.ip.att.net [12.122.31.126]
15 173 ms 173 ms 174 ms gar5.cb1ma.ip.att.net [12.122.145.33]
16 180 ms 203 ms 199 ms 12-122-254-14.attens.net [12.122.254.14]
17 174 ms 175 ms 174 ms mdf001c7613r0003-gig-10-1.bos1.attens.net [12.13
0.0.170]
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 * * * Request timed out.
26 * * * Request timed out.
27 * * * Request timed out.
28 * * * Request timed out.
29 * * * Request timed out.
30 * * * Requ
Jeff_ > est timed out.
Trace complete.
Jeff_ > there seems to be a problem with the peering arrangement from the Dallas, TX hop to ATT
Shera.26087 > May I please know how you got those ping results.
Shera.26087 > To better assist you, may I please have your account number?
Jeff_ > I got my results from doing a tracert.
Shera.26087 > Thank you.
Jeff_ > my account number is xxxxxxxxxxxx
Shera.26087 > I will also run a health check on your system, Jeff.
Shera.26087 > Thank you so much.
Shera.26087 > Please give me a minute or two, as I pull up your account information.
Jeff_ > ok.. as you can cleary see, its not my system
Shera.26087 > Thank you for waiting. I really appreciate your patience.
Shera.26087 > Jeff, please also try to run a speed test on your internet connection.
Shera.26087 > Thank you.
Shera.26087 > To run a speed test, please click this link: »www.2wire.com then choose "speed meter" link located on top.
Jeff_ > Shera, while I appreciate your help, this isnt a speed issue.. its a latency issue
Jeff_ > Speed Meter
Your current bandwidth reading is
5.55 Mbps
Shera.26087 > I understand, Jeff.
Shera.26087 > Thank you.
Shera.26087 > The result of the PING test on your system.
Shera.26087 > Pinging 00:22:2d:14:87:2e
--- 96.70.158.5 ping statistics ---
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=1 time=42.74 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=2 time=47.39 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=3 time=47.73 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=4 time=42.86 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=5 time=49.38 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=6 time=46.02 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=7 time=42.90 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=8 time=42.91 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=9 time=40.62 ms
32 bytes from 96.70.158.5 (96.70.158.5): icmp_seq=10 time=47.46 ms
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss, time 450.01 ms
rtt min/avg/max = 40.62/45.00/49.38 ms
Shera.26087 > I can not see an issue here.
Jeff_ > your kidding, right?
Shera.26087 > I think you are just having an issue if you are playing online.
Jeff_ > wow.. you have no clue
Shera.26087 > It seems that you have left the chat room. Unfortunately, I am unable to reopen this chat window. Please feel free to chat back and one of my colleagues will be happy to assist you. |
|
beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
The Beach,US
clubs:
·Mediacom
1 edit | The problem looks to be with ATT. Not something comcast can really fix. Everything on Comcasts ibone and such are fine.
Your hop 9, 192.205.35.57, is an ATT edge router, which has a good link with comcast.
--
Tech at the Beach. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
| said by beachintech  :The problem looks to be with ATT. Not something comcast can really fix. Everything on Comcasts ibone and such are fine. QFT - This looks like an issue that your Game provider should address with their ISP. Hopefully they have more than 1 ISP and can route around AT&T isssues (which appear to be growing)
You may also try and use a Game server closer to you. |
|
JeffinSmyrna
join:2004-06-26
Smyrna, TN | Actually Comcast aknowledged a routing issue on their end a couple of days ago (on their forums). They did some re-routing to the WoW servers. Im thinking this is the same issue. |
|
beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
The Beach,US
clubs:
1 edit | It's not. Everything on comcasts network and their initial link to ATT is fine. This is an ATT issue inside their own network.
Time to contact blizzard and have them work on it.
--
Tech at the Beach. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
1 edit | reply to JeffinSmyrna
said by JeffinSmyrna :Actually Comcast aknowledged a routing issue on their end a couple of days ago (on their forums). They did some re-routing to the WoW servers. Im thinking this is the same issue. I doubt it. Given Blizzard only has 1 ISP and the WoW forums are showing problems with many different ISPs (not just Comcast), I think the fix is really Blizzard's to address. The first thing a network engineer does is multi-home vs. putting all your gaming eggs in one (not so great) basket. I would think a gaming company that has millions of online customers would use more than 1 ISP. How do you route around issues if you only have AT&T?
That said, you should try a realm closer to you... say Dallas.
»www.wowwiki.com/US_realm_list_by_datacenter |
|
JeffinSmyrna
join:2004-06-26
Smyrna, TN | reply to beachintech
Thanks for the input all. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
1 edit | reply to JeffinSmyrna
Actually, this appears to be an issue between Tata and AT&T.. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
| said by EG :Actually, this appears to be an issue between Tata and AT&T.. I seem to remember there were problems between AT&T and several other ISPs including Sprint and Verizon. Blizzard pays AT&T to be their ISP and they need to fix it with them or diversify their connectivity. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
| said by yt :I seem to remember there were problems between AT&T and several other ISPs including Sprint and Verizon. Blizzard pays AT&T to be their ISP and they need to fix it with them or diversify their connectivity. Agreed ! Single homing for them = ridiculous !!
Just pointing out that the issue is between those two interconnect points in that particular trace. |
|
Captain456
@gci.net
| reply to JeffinSmyrna
Yep, the latency starts after Comcast handed the traffic to ATT. Comcast is not an ATT customer per se here, whoever is hosting the server is an ATT customer. The fault lies with ATT and their customer. It's up to their customer to get it resolved. Nothing Comcast can do. |
|
Xyc
Premium
join:2006-06-08
Sewell, NJ
| reply to beachintech
It seems like AT&T is still having issues with traffic engineering since Comcast stopped using AT&T for transit about a year ago. AT&T went from having Comcast's not-insubstantial traffic entering their network from a couple of routers per Comcast market (several hundred routers in total?) to receiving it from a limited number of peering points where they already had a lot of traffic coming in from peers like L3 and Tata. Sort of like switching a showerhead from normal to massage mode.  |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | reply to JeffinSmyrna
So I guess the Comcast rep. didn't acknowledge a problem for a reason. Imagine that.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
koshoka
join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA | No matter the problem, it's Comcast's fault. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by koshoka :No matter the problem, it's Comcast's fault. It's their use of Sandvine! 
(For those who take things too literally, that is supposed to be hyperbolic humor, not truth. Based on the controversy over Comcast's former use of Sandvine to throttle BT.)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ | reply to Captain456
said by Captain456 :
Yep, the latency starts after Comcast handed the traffic to ATT. W.I.W., it appears that CC handed the traffic to Tata/Teleglobe, which then handed the traffic to AT&T. |
|
Captain456
@gci.com
| said by EG :said by Captain456 :
Yep, the latency starts after Comcast handed the traffic to ATT. W.I.W., it appears that CC handed the traffic to Tata/Teleglobe, which then handed the traffic to AT&T. Funny you call me on that, it was even said before I made that post. So yea.... |
|
