dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1727
share rss forum feed

AJ102

join:2005-03-22
Vancouver, BC
Reviews:
·TELUS

What happened to Shaw's ping time?

One of the things I like about Shaw is the low ping times to key destinations like seattle.voip.ms, typically under 20ms. Suddenly they've shot up to more than 120ms, completely ruining my home phone voip service!

There appears to be about 50ms delay between two Shaw internal nodes, and then another 50ms to a node called "equix.asbn.twtelecom.net".

What's going on?


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

1 edit

I've been using Los Angelas since I started using Voip.ms

I get a very constant 68 ms, and rarely see jitter.

The other low latency servers, the pings jump around quite a bit I found. I tried to use Seattle as primary, but jitter (from different companies) was making things difficult.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.


AJ102

join:2005-03-22
Vancouver, BC
Reviews:
·TELUS
reply to AJ102

Los Angeles and Toronto are both better than Seattle for voip.ms currently, but all of them were much better last time I checked.

The fault definitely lies in Shaw's routing tables. Most of the delay for all 3 is happening with Shaw's network, as the packets are being bounced through at least 4 internal Shaw servers before getting out of their network.


tablo

join:2011-06-30
Edmonton, AB

1 edit
reply to AJ102

deleted


AJ102

join:2005-03-22
Vancouver, BC
reply to AJ102

And today it's back to 14 ms.

Don't know if somebody at Shaw fixed it, or it was just an automatic routing adjustment, but problem solved.



spock

join:2012-07-08
reply to AJ102

How do you guys find the call quality using voip.ms servers in the US when making Canadian calls?

I'm finding better call quality going to toronto2.voip.ms than seattle.

Just curious


AJ102

join:2005-03-22
Vancouver, BC

Being on the west coast I've only used Seattle and Los Angeles, but I choose the server mainly by ping time. As long as the ping time is low, I don't notice any call quality problems.


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

Low ping times are good, but jitter is a bigger factor in call quality.

I'll take 1 ms jitter and 80 ms pings, compared to 20 (or higher) ms jitter and 14 ms ping.

Comparing to Canadian servers or US ones, no difference in the servers, just the routes to them.

-Posted from my phone.


ilianame

join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Shaw

Shaw's route to certain Seattle providers takes you around to South California through Comcast routing and then back up the coast to Seattle (5000 extra km).

If that route is overloaded, you will be switched to a Peer1 route (transit for which is more expensive), and you'll get the 15ms pings to all destinations in Seattle.

I've long been arguing that Shaw should use Peer1 west coast route for all west coast requests, but it seems Shaw has a sweet bilateral deal with Comcast.

Don't like it...use Novus - if your building has it, in their case they use Peer1's infrastructure almost exclusively.



rustydusty

join:2009-09-29
Red Deer, AB
reply to AJ102

2 rd1so-ge12-0-0-15.cg.shawcable.net (64.59.129.114) 7.190 ms 7.369 ms 9.908 ms

3 rc1no.cg.shawcable.net (66.163.76.46) 12.716 ms 11.325 ms 12.214 ms

4 66.163.71.125 (66.163.71.125) 13.391 ms 15.351 ms 15.913 ms

5 66.163.77.89 (66.163.77.89) 32.154 ms 35.151 ms 24.419 ms 6

6.163.74.145 (66.163.74.145) 30.788 ms 31.165 ms 32.076 ms

7 xe-0-2-0-2.r04.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (198.104.202.121) 31.189 ms 29.558 ms 27.534 ms

8 ae-3.r05.sttlwa01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.51) 28.427 ms 29.321 ms 28.818 ms

9 xe-0-3-0-5.r05.sttlwa01.us.ce.gin.ntt.net (198.104.202.46) 29.516 ms 28.277 ms 28.195 ms

10 border9.t8-1-bbnet2.sef.pnap.net (63.251.160.83) 28.298 ms 30.760 ms
border9.t7-1-bbnet1.sef.pnap.net (63.251.160.19) 27.922 ms

11 c-208-146-44-9.premium-seattle.nfoservers.com (208.146.44.9) 31.752 ms 28.557 ms 35.730 ms

I LOVE Internap! Direct peering with Shaw in Seattle location


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to AJ102

said by AJ102:

There appears to be about 50ms delay between two Shaw internal nodes, and then another 50ms to a node called "equix.asbn.twtelecom.net".

What's going on?

asbn refers to Ashburn, Virginia which is 48 kilometres outside of Washington, DC. A very popular peering point as well as Chicago and New York.

It sounds like at one point you had a route going via Seattle but now it is going via Ashburn and then back across to Seattle adding the additional latency with the longer path.

34764170

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

said by rustydusty:

I LOVE Internap! Direct peering with Shaw in Seattle location

It's not direct peering. InterNAP in Seattle has NTT in their transit mix and Shaw uses NTT as one of their transit providers in addition to TATA, Telia and Level3.


rustydusty

join:2009-09-29
Red Deer, AB

said by 34764170:

said by rustydusty:

I LOVE Internap! Direct peering with Shaw in Seattle location

It's not direct peering. InterNAP in Seattle has NTT in their transit mix and Shaw uses NTT as one of their transit providers in addition to TATA, Telia and Level3.

InterNAP buys transit and doesn't use settlement-free peering. I'm sure that they have a variety of reasons for paying for bandwidth, but one of the obvious ones is service, including SLAs that guarantee consistent performance.

Internap peers directly with Shaw in Seattle through the SIX, though.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

2 edits

said by rustydusty:

InterNAP buys transit and doesn't use settlement-free peering. I'm sure that they have a variety of reasons for paying for bandwidth, but one of the obvious ones is service, including SLAs that guarantee consistent performance.

Internap peers directly with Shaw in Seattle through the SIX, though.

InterNAP does not peer with Shaw.

AJ102

join:2005-03-22
Vancouver, BC
reply to AJ102

The ping time has remained low every time I check recently, so it must have been a temporary routing anomaly. It now goes through "ubiquityservers.com" and "us.nlayer.net" at 13 ms ping.


xtachx

join:2005-11-19
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to AJ102

$ traceroute seattle.voip.ms
traceroute to seattle.voip.ms (69.147.236.82), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 ***** (192.168.1.1) 0.420 ms 0.566 ms 0.715 ms
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 rc3ar-tge0-15-2-0.ed.shawcable.net (66.163.70.50) 17.354 ms 17.478 ms 17.528 ms
5 rc2bb-pos0-8-2-0.vc.shawcable.net (66.163.76.161) 30.013 ms 30.067 ms 30.110 ms
6 66.163.76.114 (66.163.76.114) 33.919 ms 37.743 ms 37.699 ms
7 seattleix.xe-4-1-0.cr1.sea1.us.nlayer.net (206.81.80.218) 29.996 ms 29.649 ms 29.873 ms
8 69.174.121.105 (69.174.121.105) 39.572 ms 37.742 ms 37.648 ms
9 72.37.232.234 (72.37.232.234) 33.678 ms 29.161 ms 29.203 ms
10 69.147.236.82.rdns.ubiquityservers.com (69.147.236.82) 33.896 ms 34.364 ms 33.592 ms

Seems to be fine.
--
Bell Canada: It is “Preposterous" that consumers should get content they want on their cellphones.



rustydusty

join:2009-09-29
Red Deer, AB
reply to AJ102

I rented a VDS from ubiquityservers. Dumped it after a month due to terrible routes. Haven't had good luck with Mzima, which is their main provider the last time I checked. I'm getting 71ms to their Seattle location. I'm getting 36ms to an InterNAP provider in Seattle.