Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Fabian Wenk]

Hello Jeroen

On 06.02.2013 08:43, Jeroen Massar wrote:

On 2013-02-05 20:39 , Fabian Wenk wrote:

On 05.02.2013 19:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:

You are missing the important point about peering:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc


And this shows just an other problem of this world, which also matches
the title of the Video "Meja - A'll Bout The Money":

"This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it in your
country on copyright grounds. - Sorry about that."


Long live geoIP not working yet for IPv6 ;)


I did connect with IPv6, and I just tried again, with IPv4 and 
IPv6 and I only get the above message, see [1]. :( The IPvFox 
Add-on [2] is a nice help.


  [1] http://www.wenks.ch/fabian/YouTube-All_Bout_The_Money.png
  [2] https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/ipvfox/


PS: No need to use "reply all", reply only to the list is 
perfect, as I do filter e-mails based on the "List-Id" header line.



bye
Fabian


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2013-02-05 20:39 , Fabian Wenk wrote:
> Hello Jeroen
> 
> On 05.02.2013 19:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> You are missing the important point about peering:
>>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc
> 
> And this shows just an other problem of this world, which also matches
> the title of the Video "Meja - A'll Bout The Money":
> 
> "This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it in your
> country on copyright grounds. - Sorry about that."

Long live geoIP not working yet for IPv6 ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen




___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Bernd SPIESS]

hi stephan

you have always a possibility to fix this - 
you can buy transit in form of a paid peering with those 
networks who are customer-critical and be badly peered
on your existing upstreams. (be careful: no full transit - 
just peering only - with full transit you import a lot of
this problems in your network)

political it´s a bad solution because you support carrier
who don't care about good quality and needed peerings
in your region. the better version would be to kick out such
carriers from the market...
but it will improve your own network, so that you can beat
all other guys who still stuck in problems with those other carriers.

bernd


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Stephan Wolf [mailto:swinog...@hightowernet.de] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Februar 2013 23:26
An: Bernd SPIESS; swinog
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

Hi Bernd,

uh, I started a big discussion here ;)


2013/2/5 Bernd SPIESS :
> hi stephan
> this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully 
> your ip-access or ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of 
> price/mbit as you can see here

from that point you are completely right.

we as service providers can choose.
also I did.
I have multiple ISP's @home (yess...),
and also in all datacenters.

bu see customer side:
- they can choose, too
- but they don't care
- they choose by price
- or because basis link is already there


effectively:
- imagine you offer a partners service in sitzerland
- and the access is slow for customers
- effectively cablecom customers
- reason is cablecom ('s peering policy) - but they don't care

so effectively technical this is not my problem here.
it is a problem from customers chosen ISP

but again:
tell this (just a guess) 1.5 milllion cablecom internet customers

no chance ;)

the only solution:
- most cablecom customers must be unhappy and cancel contract
- then they may change peering policy

but effectively they will cancel "the other side".
because they don't care.

cheers,
stephan

ps: got no feedback by upc at all


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Stephan Wolf]

Hi Bernd,

uh, I started a big discussion here ;)


2013/2/5 Bernd SPIESS :
> hi stephan
> this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully your
> ip-access or ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of price/mbit as you can 
> see here

from that point you are completely right.

we as service providers can choose.
also I did.
I have multiple ISP's @home (yess...),
and also in all datacenters.

bu see customer side:
- they can choose, too
- but they don't care
- they choose by price
- or because basis link is already there


effectively:
- imagine you offer a partners service in sitzerland
- and the access is slow for customers
- effectively cablecom customers
- reason is cablecom ('s peering policy) - but they don't care

so effectively technical this is not my problem here.
it is a problem from customers chosen ISP

but again:
tell this (just a guess) 1.5 milllion cablecom internet customers

no chance ;)

the only solution:
- most cablecom customers must be unhappy and cancel contract
- then they may change peering policy

but effectively they will cancel "the other side".
because they don't care.

cheers,
stephan

ps: got no feedback by upc at all


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Gregory Agerba]

Just some thoughts...

> study peering connect, peering policy and peering reality,
> for the ip carrier of your choice,
> carefully in all markets, which are important for you.

Yes, but this changes daily. If you are single-homed, brace
and hope everything keeps "as is" when things work. Good example:
Swisscom was primary transit was Level(3) for ages and suddenly
changed and brought a new stringent peering policy based on ratios.
It probably changed a lot the perception when the traffic moved
from AS3356 to AS1299 almost in one day.

> I'd say here's where the problem begins and it still UPC network
> I think.

There is no "problem" between UPC and Cogent. This is meant to be so,
because UPC does have a wide footprint and Cogent too and they have
conflicting interests. UPC is known to narrow-minded peering policy.
UPC does have operations in a lot of countries (AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE,
HU, IE, NL, PL, RO, SK) and more to come, they have a lot of eyeballs
and can afford that... the winner here is the one who pays the least
for his transit, or the one who has settlement-free peering with Level(3).

> it is the responsibility of the first network handing over in europe on
the
> way "up" and it is the responsibility of the second network handing
> over also in europe on the way "down". (zurich, amsterdam or london
> would be suited in this case)

Correct. Any multihomed network can decide how they want to route.
They control the way, the flow are sent out, but not the way they are
received.
Using BGP protocol, it is possible for anybody to influence this and have
the last word, unless depeering gets involved.

> From my experience Swisscom is doing great peering with most
> destinations that I use, be those local or remote (eg the US).
> (the only thing one could say is that some goes over Geneva, but that is
> apparently where their DSL handoff happens)

Not sure they do. Especially with the changes that occured lately. Their
"ratio" peering policy, or paid peering policy will definitely cause
collateral
damages. They have already treated to depeer some medium-size network but
have
not yet done it. At least for the networks I am aware of. When money is at
stake
it seems the good-faith wins ;-)

> My point is:
> PEERING PAYS OFF. No matter how "evli" your competitor might look
> like, both save money and gain speed.
> Even ISP's in other parts of the world have started to realize that
> its stupid to send off traffic across continents just because they
> don't like the competitor.

Your point is very questionable. While peering is a good way to address
route diversification, it also tends to be used to shift "cheaply" all
traffic, ending up with oversubscribed links, higher latency, jitters,
and an overall bad quality. Too many networks see peering as the way to
get masses of bandwidth for cheap, while ending up with suboptimal network
quality of service. Add the hazardous BGP alogrithm for route selection
and you got all the ingredients of a "swinish" network.

Most people who tends to say this lack

 Gregory


On 5 February 2013 20:39, Fabian Wenk  wrote:

> Hello Jeroen
>
> On 05.02.2013 19:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> You are missing the important point about peering:
>>   
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=PUYdi43qXHc
>>
>
> And this shows just an other problem of this world, which also matches the
> title of the Video "Meja - A'll Bout The Money":
>
> "This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it in your country
> on copyright grounds. - Sorry about that."
>
>
> bye
> Fabian
>
>
> __**_
> swinog mailing list
> swinog@lists.swinog.ch
> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
>

___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Fabian Wenk]

Hello Jeroen

On 05.02.2013 19:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:

You are missing the important point about peering:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc


And this shows just an other problem of this world, which also 
matches the title of the Video "Meja - A'll Bout The Money":


"This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it in your 
country on copyright grounds. - Sorry about that."



bye
Fabian


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2013-02-05 19:31 , Andreas Fink wrote:
> side note: I was testing LTE in Basel. Speed is lower than 3G (like
> 3-5M/sec) I wondered why as my friends in Finland get like 40M/s

LTE is not deployed yet for real in Switzerland...

Note also that for instance

> What spring to my mind however is that the speed test tools do in
> fact measure speed with local providers around the corner. And as far
> as I know, swisscom doesn't peer on SwissIX with them so it might
> very likley be a similar ping-pong through somewhere else in europe
> or USA which is potentially ruining the speed. Of course it could
> simply be not enough capacity inside the mobile network.

Did you try a traceroute?

>From my experience Swisscom is doing great peering with most
destinations that I use, be those local or remote (eg the US).
(the only thing one could say is that some goes over Geneva, but that is
apparently where their DSL handoff happens)

> My point is: PEERING PAYS OFF. No matter how "evli" your competitor
> might look like, both save money and gain speed. Even ISP's in other
> parts of the world have started to realize that its stupid to send
> off traffic across continents just because they don't like the
> competitor.

You are missing the important point about peering:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc

Oh and of course if you 'cut off' your competitor that might just be a
business case for a customer to go to you or them, next to them not
being tier-1 enough

Also, do calculate into the equation the cost of the interfaces needed
to have traffic transfer at one or the other location.

In the end though it is a penis game...

Greets,
 Jeroen


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Andreas Fink]

side note: I was testing LTE in Basel. Speed is lower than 3G (like 3-5M/sec)
I wondered why as my friends in Finland get like 40M/s

What spring to my mind however is that the speed test tools do in fact measure 
speed with local providers around the corner. And as far as I know, swisscom 
doesn't peer on SwissIX with them so it might very likley be a similar 
ping-pong through somewhere else in europe or USA which is potentially ruining 
the speed. Of course it could simply be not enough capacity inside the mobile 
network. 

My point is:
PEERING PAYS OFF. No matter how "evli" your competitor might look like, both 
save money and gain speed.
Even ISP's in other parts of the world have started to realize that its stupid 
to send off traffic across continents just because they don't like the 
competitor.


On 05.02.2013, at 23:47, Bernd SPIESS  wrote:

> 
>>  358 ms58 ms43 ms
>> 217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[217.168.58.101]
>>  4   139 ms   140 ms   145 ms  84.116.211.22
>> I'd say here's where the problem begins and it still UPC network I think.
> 
> sorry - no - as the handover takes part in washington you have twice
> the atlantic in between... it´s a problem of peering/transiting in usa and 
> not a 
> upc internal problem in ch.
> 
> it is the responsibility of the first network handing over in europe on the
> way "up" and it is the responsibility of the second network handing 
> over also in europe on the way "down". (zurich, amsterdam or london
> would be suited in this case)
> 
> as this is not the the case here you should tell them to fix that, or choose
> another provider who does good ip housekeeping.
> 
> bernd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> swinog mailing list
> swinog@lists.swinog.ch
> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog




___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Bernd SPIESS]

>   358 ms58 ms43 ms
> 217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[217.168.58.101]
>   4   139 ms   140 ms   145 ms  84.116.211.22
> I'd say here's where the problem begins and it still UPC network I think.

sorry - no - as the handover takes part in washington you have twice
the atlantic in between... it´s a problem of peering/transiting in usa and not 
a 
upc internal problem in ch.

it is the responsibility of the first network handing over in europe on the
way "up" and it is the responsibility of the second network handing 
over also in europe on the way "down". (zurich, amsterdam or london
would be suited in this case)

as this is not the the case here you should tell them to fix that, or choose
another provider who does good ip housekeeping.

bernd




___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Marcin Cieslak]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Stephan Wolf wrote:

> hello,
> 
> since longer I have seen, that UPC is routing Cablecom Home connetions via
> US to London:
> 
> 
> Tracing route to 82.129.64.250 over a maximum of 30 hops
> 
>   358 ms58 ms43 ms
> 217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[217.168.58.101]
>   4   139 ms   140 ms   145 ms  84.116.211.22

I'd say here's where the problem begins and it still UPC network
I think.

//Marcin

@saperski


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Bernd SPIESS]

hi stephan

this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully your 
ip-access or
ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of price/mbit as you can see here -

study peering connect, peering policy and peering reality, for the ip carrier 
of your choice,
carefully in all markets, which are important for you.

in general it is not unusual that you have ip networks which are focused on 
routing primary e.G.
via usa, amsterdam or scandinavia - depending on where their headquarter is 
running -

if the given names belongs to a category which you want to blacklist is your 
decision -
i don´t want to comment this here...

in general it is high likely that smaller national isp´s/carriers or even 
regional players with an eye
and feeling for peering points in the own and neighboring countries came out 
with a much better performance
than big-tier1 - especially if these ones are involved in playing peering 
politics ...

for some more information just search fredys blog on cablecom issues ...

bernd spiess
i3b/ascus/xpirio/essgroup (AS39912)

Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch> 
[mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch] Im Auftrag von Gregory Agerba
Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Februar 2013 17:21
An: Stephan Wolf
Cc: swi...@swinog.ch<mailto:swi...@swinog.ch>
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

Do you mean UPC is routing Cogent through USA?
Basically, UPC doesn't peer with Cogent and have it delivered by their 
upstreams.
This is called hair pinning and it is probably one of the very few major 
network that has such issue with UPC.

 Gregory

On 5 February 2013 17:11, Stephan Wolf 
mailto:swinog...@hightowernet.de>> wrote:
hello,

since longer I have seen, that UPC is routing Cablecom Home connetions via US 
to London:


Tracing route to 82.129.64.250 over a maximum of 30 hops

  246 ms68 ms52 ms  
77-56-176-1.dclient.hispeed.ch<http://77-56-176-1.dclient.hispeed.ch> 
[77.56.176.1]
  358 ms58 ms43 ms  
217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch<http://217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch> 
[217.168.58.101]
  4   139 ms   140 ms   145 ms  84.116.211.22
  5   149 ms   145 ms   140 ms  84.116.204.225
  6   163 ms   171 ms   171 ms  
fr-par02a-rd1-gi-15-0-0.aorta.net<http://fr-par02a-rd1-gi-15-0-0.aorta.net> 
[84.116.130.213]
  7   147 ms   155 ms   163 ms  
84-116-130-61.aorta.net<http://84-116-130-61.aorta.net> [84.116.130.61]
  8   167 ms   135 ms   165 ms  84.116.134.66
  9   203 ms   233 ms   179 ms  
te-4-1.car3.Washington1.Level3.net<http://te-4-1.car3.Washington1.Level3.net> 
[4.79.168.201]
 10   147 ms   149 ms   145 ms  
ae-2-70.edge3.Washington4.Level3.net<http://ae-2-70.edge3.Washington4.Level3.net>
 [4.69.149.82]
 11   152 ms   144 ms   147 ms  
Cogent-level3-1x10G.washington.Level3.net<http://Cogent-level3-1x10G.washington.Level3.net>
 [4.68.63.174]
 12   158 ms   149 ms   171 ms  
te0-5-0-2.mpd22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-5-0-2.mpd22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.2.41]
 13   167 ms   150 ms   143 ms  
te0-2-0-2.mpd22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-2-0-2.mpd22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.5.49]
 14   243 ms   254 ms   246 ms  
te0-2-0-2.mpd22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-2-0-2.mpd22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.42.54]
 15   218 ms   223 ms   237 ms  
te0-3-0-6.ccr22.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-3-0-6.ccr22.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.74.61]
 16   253 ms   240 ms   232 ms  
te2-1.ccr01.lon18.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te2-1.ccr01.lon18.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.61.214]
 17   231 ms   246 ms   251 ms  149.14.8.34
 18   227 ms   241 ms   230 ms  82.129.64.250

which causes high latencies

via all other providers in CH which we have tried out, incl. and swissix, we 
have much better connections / less latency.
also all our ISP's in germany have good connections

only UPC lames - that sucks ;-(

may someone of cablecom can check this, and contact me offlist ?

thanks in advance
stephan


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch>
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Bernd SPIESS]

hi stephan

this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully your 
ip-access or
ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of price/mbit as you can see here -

study peering connect, peering policy and peering reality, for the ip carrier 
of your choice,
carefully in all markets, which are important for you.

in general it is not unusual that you have ip networks which are focused on 
routing primary e.G.
via usa, amsterdam or scandinavia - depending on where their headquarter is 
running -

if the given names belongs to a category which you want to blacklist is your 
decision -
i don´t want to comment this here...

in general it is high likely that smaller national isp´s/carriers or even 
regional players with an eye
and feeling for peering points in the own and neighboring countries came out 
with a much better performance
than big-tier1 - especially if these ones are involved in playing peering 
politics ...

for some more information just search fredys blog on cablecom issues ...

bernd spiess
i3b/ascus/xpirio/essgroup (AS39912)

Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch] Im 
Auftrag von Gregory Agerba
Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Februar 2013 17:21
An: Stephan Wolf
Cc: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

Do you mean UPC is routing Cogent through USA?
Basically, UPC doesn't peer with Cogent and have it delivered by their 
upstreams.
This is called hair pinning and it is probably one of the very few major 
network that has such issue with UPC.

 Gregory

On 5 February 2013 17:11, Stephan Wolf 
mailto:swinog...@hightowernet.de>> wrote:
hello,

since longer I have seen, that UPC is routing Cablecom Home connetions via US 
to London:


Tracing route to 82.129.64.250 over a maximum of 30 hops

  246 ms68 ms52 ms  
77-56-176-1.dclient.hispeed.ch<http://77-56-176-1.dclient.hispeed.ch> 
[77.56.176.1]
  358 ms58 ms43 ms  
217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch<http://217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch> 
[217.168.58.101]
  4   139 ms   140 ms   145 ms  84.116.211.22
  5   149 ms   145 ms   140 ms  84.116.204.225
  6   163 ms   171 ms   171 ms  
fr-par02a-rd1-gi-15-0-0.aorta.net<http://fr-par02a-rd1-gi-15-0-0.aorta.net> 
[84.116.130.213]
  7   147 ms   155 ms   163 ms  
84-116-130-61.aorta.net<http://84-116-130-61.aorta.net> [84.116.130.61]
  8   167 ms   135 ms   165 ms  84.116.134.66
  9   203 ms   233 ms   179 ms  
te-4-1.car3.Washington1.Level3.net<http://te-4-1.car3.Washington1.Level3.net> 
[4.79.168.201]
 10   147 ms   149 ms   145 ms  
ae-2-70.edge3.Washington4.Level3.net<http://ae-2-70.edge3.Washington4.Level3.net>
 [4.69.149.82]
 11   152 ms   144 ms   147 ms  
Cogent-level3-1x10G.washington.Level3.net<http://Cogent-level3-1x10G.washington.Level3.net>
 [4.68.63.174]
 12   158 ms   149 ms   171 ms  
te0-5-0-2.mpd22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-5-0-2.mpd22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.2.41]
 13   167 ms   150 ms   143 ms  
te0-2-0-2.mpd22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-2-0-2.mpd22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.5.49]
 14   243 ms   254 ms   246 ms  
te0-2-0-2.mpd22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-2-0-2.mpd22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.42.54]
 15   218 ms   223 ms   237 ms  
te0-3-0-6.ccr22.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te0-3-0-6.ccr22.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.74.61]
 16   253 ms   240 ms   232 ms  
te2-1.ccr01.lon18.atlas.cogentco.com<http://te2-1.ccr01.lon18.atlas.cogentco.com>
 [154.54.61.214]
 17   231 ms   246 ms   251 ms  149.14.8.34
 18   227 ms   241 ms   230 ms  82.129.64.250

which causes high latencies

via all other providers in CH which we have tried out, incl. and swissix, we 
have much better connections / less latency.
also all our ISP's in germany have good connections

only UPC lames - that sucks ;-(

may someone of cablecom can check this, and contact me offlist ?

thanks in advance
stephan


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch<mailto:swinog@lists.swinog.ch>
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog


___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Re: [swinog] Cablecom Home to London via USA

[Gregory Agerba]

Do you mean UPC is routing Cogent through USA?
Basically, UPC doesn't peer with Cogent and have it delivered by their
upstreams.
This is called hair pinning and it is probably one of the very few major
network that has such issue with UPC.

 Gregory


On 5 February 2013 17:11, Stephan Wolf  wrote:

> hello,
>
> since longer I have seen, that UPC is routing Cablecom Home connetions via
> US to London:
>
>
> Tracing route to 82.129.64.250 over a maximum of 30 hops
>
>   246 ms68 ms52 ms  77-56-176-1.dclient.hispeed.ch[77.56.176.1]
>   358 ms58 ms43 ms  
> 217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[217.168.58.101]
>   4   139 ms   140 ms   145 ms  84.116.211.22
>   5   149 ms   145 ms   140 ms  84.116.204.225
>   6   163 ms   171 ms   171 ms  
> fr-par02a-rd1-gi-15-0-0.aorta.net[84.116.130.213]
>   7   147 ms   155 ms   163 ms  84-116-130-61.aorta.net [84.116.130.61]
>   8   167 ms   135 ms   165 ms  84.116.134.66
>   9   203 ms   233 ms   179 ms  
> te-4-1.car3.Washington1.Level3.net[4.79.168.201]
>  10   147 ms   149 ms   145 ms  
> ae-2-70.edge3.Washington4.Level3.net[4.69.149.82]
>  11   152 ms   144 ms   147 ms  
> Cogent-level3-1x10G.washington.Level3.net[4.68.63.174]
>  12   158 ms   149 ms   171 ms  
> te0-5-0-2.mpd22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.2.41]
>  13   167 ms   150 ms   143 ms  
> te0-2-0-2.mpd22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.5.49]
>  14   243 ms   254 ms   246 ms  
> te0-2-0-2.mpd22.lon13.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.42.54]
>  15   218 ms   223 ms   237 ms  
> te0-3-0-6.ccr22.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.74.61]
>  16   253 ms   240 ms   232 ms  
> te2-1.ccr01.lon18.atlas.cogentco.com[154.54.61.214]
>  17   231 ms   246 ms   251 ms  149.14.8.34
>  18   227 ms   241 ms   230 ms  82.129.64.250
>
> which causes high latencies
>
> via all other providers in CH which we have tried out, incl. and swissix,
> we have much better connections / less latency.
> also all our ISP's in germany have good connections
>
> only UPC lames - that sucks ;-(
>
> may someone of cablecom can check this, and contact me offlist ?
>
> thanks in advance
> stephan
>
>
> ___
> swinog mailing list
> swinog@lists.swinog.ch
> http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
>
>

___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog