|
chgva01 extremely slow
![[ch]](/s/countries/ch.gif) Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 15:29:21
Does someone else also consider heavily Performance issues with POP chgva01?
I recognized this the first time yesterday (15.04.2014).
I can't see any Troubles within the sixxs.net Homepage or the traffic stats of this POP.
thanks for answers :)
chgva01 extremely slow
Does someone else also consider heavily Performance issues with POP chgva01?
You might want to consult the FAQ and actually provide details, instead of making a statement without detail.
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 16:52:31
That's why I wrote this post rather than a Ticket to get msgs from others, if they experiencing the same.
My Internet connectivity with my IPv4 carries works perfectly. Here are the results from the Speed test recommended on the FAQ (Values are in Mbit/s:
Netherlands, ZeelandNet
IPv4: 17.1
IPv6 10.2
Lyon, LaFibre.info:
IPv4: 19.8
IPv6: 19.4
Roubaix, OVH:
IPv4: 19.9
IPv6: 18.8
Bucharest, RCS&RDS:
IPv4: 20.0
IPv6: 15.7
And a speedtest with Hongkong (from speedtest6.com:
Download Speed: 4.31
Upload Speed: 0.3
Connections to Google Services (YouTube included) or Facebook is quite not possible since yesterday. When I disable the IPv6 connectivity on a specific Computer, Internet Access works like a charm.
Please tell me if I can help out with more Information.
chgva01 extremely slow
As the IPv4 and IPv6 values are almost the same, what is the problem?
Connections to Google Services (YouTube included) or Facebook is quite not possible since yesterday.
Did you see the FAQ item mentioned above? Did you notice the "include a sufficient description as mentioned in the Reporting Problems section of the contact page" mentioned in the two big boxes when posting? Please provide a lot more detail.
Stating "this and that is not possible" without any actual details does not allow for seeing what the problem might be, and as the FAQ alludes to, there can be many many issues.
Hence, details please!
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 17:40:03
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Hence, details please!
I'm sorry, I couldn't find resource to get valuable results for Google Services.
But I would not consider missing more than a third of the Performance to the netherlands as almost the same.
And here is antoher Speed test from http://speedtest.comcast.net/
http://stage.results.speedtest.comcast.net/result/482746784.png
C:\Windows\System32>ping www.youtube.com
Pinging youtube-ui.l.google.com [2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b] with 32 bytes o
Reply from 2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b: time=76ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b: time=76ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b: time=76ms
Reply from 2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b: time=77ms
Ping statistics for 2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 76ms, Maximum = 77ms, Average = 76ms
C:\Windows\System32>ping www.youtube.com -4
Pinging youtube-ui.l.google.com [173.194.116.67] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.116.67: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.116.67: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.116.67: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.116.67: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 173.194.116.67:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms
I really don't know how to provide better Information, please tell me, what I can do, or what Kind of Information is helping.
chgva01 extremely slow
But I would not consider missing more than a third of the Performance to the netherlands as almost the same.
As per the FAQ mentioned above, ever considered the path it is happening over?
Really, there is nothing bad about that. As is clearly shown (by yourself) other services are fine.
http://stage.results.speedtest.comcast.net/result/482746784.png
Comcast speed test is meant for Comcast customers, they do not serve well outside of that. They are also on the other side of the planet.
I can do close to 250mbit to most local servers, but to the Comcast speedtest only get 22mbit, both IPv4 and IPv6 mind you. The path is the important part here.
There is a reason why we have a FAQ related to speed.
Reply from 2a00:1450:4001:c02::5b: time=76ms ... Reply from 173.194.116.67: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=56
What are the paths for each of these?
I really don't know how to provide better Information, please tell me, what I can do, or what Kind of Information is helping.
There is a number of things mentioned in the FAQ, there are others on the Contact page, as pointed out to you several times already...
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 17:52:33
Hi Jeroen, I really appreciate our help.
Please do understand, that my intense of the post was only to look for other People, if they having the same Problem, or if I should look for the Problem on my side.
Here are the Tracert for YouTube:
C:\Windows\System32>tracert www.youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube-ui.l.google.com [2a00:1450:4001:c02::88]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my first router
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my second router
3 66 ms 67 ms 66 ms gw-273.gva-01.ch.sixxs.net [2a02:2528:ff00:110::
1]
4 66 ms 68 ms 66 ms 2a02:2528:ff:1::4
5 69 ms 67 ms 67 ms ge0-1.gv1.ip-max.sixxs.net [2a02:2528:ff:1::2]
6 69 ms 68 ms 68 ms ge3-14.ar01.gva253.ip-max.net [2a02:2528:103:1::
1]
7 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms xe0-0-2.cr02.gva253.ip-max.net [2a02:2528:102:13
::1]
8 73 ms 71 ms 71 ms te2-1.er01.zh01.ip-max.net [2a02:2528:2:10::2]
9 73 ms 70 ms 72 ms swissix.google.com [2001:7f8:24::4a]
10 80 ms 77 ms 92 ms 2001:4860::1:0:4ca3
11 82 ms 77 ms 76 ms 2001:4860::8:0:5039
12 77 ms 77 ms 76 ms 2001:4860::2:0:48c
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 78 ms 77 ms 76 ms fa-in-x88.1e100.net [2a00:1450:4001:c02::88]
Trace complete.
---------------
C:\Windows\System32>tracert -4 www.youtube.com
Tracing route to youtube-ui.l.google.com [173.194.116.67]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my first router
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my second router
3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 154-242-3-213.bluewin.ch [213.3.242.154]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 86-246-3-213.bluewin.ch [213.3.246.86]
5 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms 66-0-186-195.bluewin.ch [195.186.0.66]
6 11 ms 14 ms 10 ms 66-0-186-195.bluewin.ch [195.186.0.66]
7 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms i79inx-015-ae2.bb.ip-plus.net [138.187.130.108]
8 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms 72.14.222.46
9 16 ms 11 ms 11 ms 209.85.244.127
10 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms zrh04s08-in-f3.1e100.net [173.194.116.67]
Trace complete.
-------------
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 17:53:12
Martin Wuethrich wrote:
Hi Jeroen, I really appreciate our help.
Sorry I meant your help!
chgva01 extremely slow
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my first router 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my second router 3 66 ms 67 ms 66 ms gw-273.gva-01.ch.sixxs.net [2a02:2528:ff00:110::1]
Your first hop is already 66ms, that is quite a big part of your latency.
and a traceroute (IPv4 mind you) shows why that is so much:
traceroute to 84.253.1.161 (84.253.1.161), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 ge0-1.gv1.ip-max.sixxs.net (46.20.243.2) 1.363 ms 1.275 ms 2.659 ms
2 ge3-14.ar01.gva253.ip-max.net (46.20.240.193) 0.824 ms 1.119 ms 1.130 ms
3 xe0-0-2.cr02.gva253.ip-max.net (46.20.251.33) 0.658 ms 0.679 ms 0.679 ms
4 te2-1.er01.zh01.ip-max.net (46.20.254.98) 46.015 ms 45.998 ms 46.637 ms
5 ge0-1.er01.fra01.ip-max.net (46.20.246.210) 8.868 ms 8.864 ms 9.553 ms
6 ge0-1.er01.msk09.ip-max.net (46.20.246.218) 45.801 ms 45.867 ms 45.812 ms
7 213.159.127.105 (213.159.127.105) 45.790 ms 45.678 ms 45.775 ms
8 80-64-96-129.rascom.as20764.net (81.27.254.129) 45.750 ms 45.737 ms 46.862 ms
9 80-64-96-237.rascom.as20764.net (80.64.96.237) 46.454 ms 47.109 ms 47.096 ms
10 194.186.43.121 (194.186.43.121) 46.386 ms 212.119.251.61 (212.119.251.61) 46.380 ms 194.186.43.121 (194.186.43.121) 46.338 ms
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 80.156.163.129 (80.156.163.129) 45.280 ms 45.270 ms 50.159 ms
14 217.239.37.234 (217.239.37.234) 50.267 ms 47.365 ms 47.361 ms
15 80.157.130.222 (80.157.130.222) 54.998 ms 50.943 ms 50.953 ms
16 i79zhb-025-hun0-3-0-0.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.28) 56.730 ms 60.026 ms 59.966 ms
17 69-0-186-195.bluewin.ch (195.186.0.69) 53.548 ms 53.485 ms 52.926 ms
18 85-246-3-213.bluewin.ch (213.3.246.85) 52.900 ms 56.383 ms 52.941 ms
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
Wow, going over Moscow... that is rather bad. I'll contact IP-Max to ask if they can peek into that.
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 17:59:28
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Wow, going over Moscow... that is rather bad. I'll contact IP-Max to ask if they can peek into that.
Thank you very much, and sorry for my bad Information flow...
chgva01 extremely slow
Wow, going over Moscow... that is rather bad. I'll contact IP-Max to ask if they can peek into that.
And it is not strange that it is going there, seems Swisscom is forgetting to route it properly:
https://stat.ripe.net/84.253.0.0%2F19#tabId=routing
Which might explain why you experience such bad connectivity as quite large parts of the world do not even see the prefix you are coming from.
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 08:19:57
Jeroen Massar wrote:
https://stat.ripe.net/84.253.0.0%2F19#tabId=routing
Which might explain why you experience such bad connectivity as quite large parts of the world do not even see the prefix you are coming from.
Thanks for the link.
So, my understanding is:
My IPv4 Connection works perfect, because everyone has announced their routes OK.
But the IPv6 tunnel is etablished from chgva01 to my tunnel endpoint. Because of your Investigations of a bad Routing by swisscom, the tunnel is routed over moscow. And finally this is why the Performance is bad?
If this is true, I then will call the swisscom Support.
chgva01 extremely slow
My IPv4 Connection works perfect, because everyone has announced their routes OK.
No, your IPv4 connection can not work perfectly, because Swisscom is not announcing your prefix properly. (There is a /19 + /18 being announced, but the /19 is more-specific and thus the /18 gets ignored)
Because of your Investigations of a bad Routing by swisscom, the tunnel is routed over moscow.
Not because of our "Investigations" is the routing bad, it simply is bad because they announce it wrong.
And as they announce it wrongly, there are only a few paths, and one of those paths leads over Moscow.
And finally this is why the Performance is bad?
Yep, routing your packets half-way around the world causes bad performance, compared to proper routing :)
If this is true, I then will call the swisscom Support.
Do call them and point them to the RIPE URL mentioned above and point out that the /18 still exists (which is bad), while the /19 is properly announced (which would be the good one).
They should be aware though, as I spammed SwiNOG with this tidbit which should actually reach the proper people at Swisscom instead of their support department (then again, Swisscom has proper support folks from the few times I contacted them, not using them for a long time though...)
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 08:48:14
Jeroen Massar wrote:
No, your IPv4 connection can not work perfectly, because Swisscom is not announcing your prefix properly. (There is a /19 + /18 being announced, but the /19 is more-specific and thus the /18 gets ignored)
Well ok, the clouds are going away :) Thanks for pointing that out. My Statement was unclear. My experience of the IPv4 Connection was good, but I obviously only used some services, and not the hole Internet.
Important inofmration, the the /18 will be ignored, thanks for pointing that out!
Do call them and point them to the RIPE URL mentioned above and point out that the /18 still exists (which is bad), while the /19 is properly announced (which would be the good one).
I have called them now, and they are looking for the issue. I have always made good experiences with swisscom Support, they always try to help you out. They will give me a call later.
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 09:17:08
Jeroen Massar wrote:
No, your IPv4 connection can not work perfectly, because Swisscom is not
Until now, I have already learned a lot. But I've got now one big question, and I hope you will find the time to answer :)
Your tracert to my tunnel endpoint 84.253.1.161 goes over moscow. When I do the same to "your" geneva tunnel endpoint:traceroute to 46.20.243.4 (46.20.243.4), 24 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 154-242-3-213.bluewin.ch (213.3.242.154) 10.170 ms 9.651 ms 9.684 ms
2 86-246-3-213.bluewin.ch (213.3.246.86) 9.950 ms 9.829 ms 9.933 ms
3 66-0-186-195.bluewin.ch (195.186.0.66) 13.719 ms 14.319 ms 12.199 ms
4 66-0-186-195.bluewin.ch (195.186.0.66) 12.703 ms 11.464 ms 10.937 ms
5 i79zhh-005-hun7-0-0.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.142) 10.453 ms 10.802 ms 10.697 ms
6 i62bsw-025-hun0-0-0-0.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.62) 13.226 ms 15.836 ms 16.176 ms
7 i00dcx-005-hun2-0-0.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.83) 16.210 ms 16.555 ms 16.196 ms
8 xe-0.de-cix.frnkge03.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (80.81.192.46) 17.461 ms 18.069 ms 18.679 ms
9 ae-2.r20.frnkge04.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.217) 19.713 ms
ae-5.r21.frnkge03.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.162) 23.102 ms
ae-2.r20.frnkge04.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.217) 17.329 ms
10 ae-3.r02.frnkge04.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.54) 17.559 ms 18.091 ms
ae-2.r02.frnkge04.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.94) 18.704 ms
11 ge4-0.er01.fra01.ip-max.net (212.119.15.102) 17.144 ms 17.317 ms 17.192 ms
12 ge3-1.er01.zh01.ip-max.net (46.20.246.209) 25.715 ms 25.567 ms 25.944 ms
13 xe0-0-3.cr02.gva253.ip-max.net (46.20.254.97) 25.216 ms 25.553 ms 25.677 ms
14 te2-2.er01.gva253.ip-max.net (46.20.251.34) 25.934 ms 25.559 ms 25.201 ms
15 ge0-0.gv1.ip-max.sixxs.net (46.20.240.194) 25.685 ms 25.347 ms 25.434 ms
16 chgva01.sixxs.net (46.20.243.4) 26.056 ms 26.540 ms 26.191 ms
Everything is fine from my Point of view.
My understanding is, that the package which i'm sending is going directly through the correct route. But the reply from the router can go through russia because of the routing. So shouldn't be at least the latency as much high as in your Tracert?
Or follows the reply package from the target host the same route as the request was coming? I can't Image this, but I'm really no longer sure about.
Thank you very much for your time!
chgva01 extremely slow
[..]
Your tracert to my tunnel endpoint 84.253.1.161 goes over moscow. When I do the same to "your" geneva tunnel endpoint
That is because IP-max is discarding (and thus ignoring) the /19 announcement, hence the /18 is chosen which is going over NTT and is much speedier.
Now to see when Swisscom solves the problem for the rest of the world.
Note btw: that a traceroute is one-direction. The forward and reverse path can differ significantly.
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 11:22:54
Jeroen Massar wrote:
That is because IP-max is discarding (and thus ignoring) the /19 announcement, hence the /18 is chosen which is going over NTT and is much speedier.
Now to see when Swisscom solves the problem for the rest of the world.
Note btw: that a traceroute is one-direction. The forward and reverse path can differ significantly.
Hi Jeroen,
thank you very much for your time and explanations!
Hopefully swisscom will fix this soon, haven't heard anything from them.
Kind regards Martin
chgva01 extremely slow
Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 17:48:25
Here I can deliver an Tracert to Facebook.com:
C:\Windows\System32>tracert www.facebook.com
Tracing route to star.c10r.facebook.com [2a03:2880:2110:9f07:face:b00c:0:1]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my first router
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my second router
3 66 ms 67 ms 66 ms gw-273.gva-01.ch.sixxs.net [2a02:2528:ff00:110:
1]
4 67 ms 67 ms 67 ms 2a02:2528:ff:1::4
5 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms ge0-1.gv1.ip-max.sixxs.net [2a02:2528:ff:1::2]
6 68 ms 99 ms 69 ms ge3-14.ar01.gva253.ip-max.net [2a02:2528:103:1:
1]
7 69 ms 67 ms 68 ms 2a02:2528:101:31::1
8 68 ms 68 ms 68 ms po1.ge3-4.br01.gva253.ip-max.net [2a02:2528:102
10::2]
9 83 ms 121 ms 102 ms br02.ams1.tfbnw.net [2001:7f8:1::a503:2934:2]
10 83 ms 84 ms 84 ms ae2.bb02.ams2.tfbnw.net [2620:0:1cff:dead:beef:
1618]
11 88 ms 89 ms 88 ms ae7.bb02.lhr2.tfbnw.net [2620:0:1cff:dead:beef:
1c19]
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 191 ms 191 ms 191 ms be56.bb01.iad3.tfbnw.net [2620:0:1cff:dead:beef
:475]
14 202 ms 182 ms 181 ms ae8.bb03.frc1.tfbnw.net [2620:0:1cff:dead:beef:
12a8]
15 184 ms 186 ms 194 ms ae3.dr04.frc1.tfbnw.net [2620:0:1cff:dead:beef:
1b7]
16 175 ms 175 ms 180 ms po1022.csw09c.frc1.tfbnw.net [2620:0:1cff:dead:
eee::25b]
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 173 ms 174 ms 174 ms edge-star6-shv-09-frc1.facebook.com [2a03:2880:
110:9f07:face:b00c:0:1]
Trace complete.
------
same with ipv4:
C:\Windows\System32>tracert -4 www.facebook.com
Tracing route to star.c10r.facebook.com [66.220.152.19]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my first router
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my second router
3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 154-242-3-213.bluewin.ch [213.3.242.154]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 86-246-3-213.bluewin.ch [213.3.246.86]
5 10 ms 14 ms 14 ms 66-0-186-195.bluewin.ch [195.186.0.66]
6 14 ms 13 ms 10 ms 66-0-186-195.bluewin.ch [195.186.0.66]
7 17 ms 18 ms 18 ms i00ffm-015-hun0-6-0-0.bb.ip-plus.net [138.187.12
9.29]
8 17 ms * 17 ms ae1.br01.fra1.tfbnw.net [80.81.194.40]
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 114 ms 115 ms 115 ms be38.bb01.iad3.tfbnw.net [31.13.29.255]
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 114 ms 114 ms 143 ms ae87.dr03.frc1.tfbnw.net [173.252.64.51]
14 115 ms 115 ms 114 ms po1020.csw09c.frc1.tfbnw.net [31.13.26.133]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 114 ms 114 ms 114 ms edge-star-shv-09-frc1.facebook.com [66.220.152.1
9]
Trace complete.
----------------
The differences are quite small. And while testing, Google is working fine now.
|
on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 15:35:42
Posting is only allowed when you are