184 replies to this topic

[John E]

My ping typically changes from 600-1500 without any dns change anyways. And 600ms ping isn't really that playable unless your using an LRM boat, so i'm not too eager to try that out. You are lucky to be playing at 30-100ms ping.

When did I say this? My point is that connections from our ISP to the particular IP that we are testing tracert with is yielding normal results. So the problem may lie somewhere else.

Yes these are all guesses because they cant seem to pinpoint the main problem, whats odd is that for most people this problem was introduced right after a patch.

If this is the case then multiple ISP's in world would need to give MWO special treatment? I'm not so sure that will happen given other online games arent even having this type of problem. Also a few months before the patch MWO was working fine. I think your wrong on this one. If it was originally working before the patch without VPN then it should continue doing so, have had no problems with other online games I play except MWO. And if they cannot handle overseas players then they might as well just limit their registration to US/Canadian or other countries that they can truly support. Instead of allowing us to buy into the game then all of a sudden say its not us its you so find a way to fix it yourself which is really disheartening.

You should report them and lessen team killers to make our community better

Edited by Niko Snow, 02 January 2014 - 08:36 AM.
Quotes Removed

[John E]

RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

well your saying your in game ping is different from the tracert, which means your tracert is useless. ALthough I don't see how thats possible, unless you mean spikes.

Yes what i'm saying is that my tracert is different from my in game ping. This is supported by mastawolf's post earlier about PGI saying that connection tests yeild normal results however in-game traffic are different.

RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

It has also been stated in this thread that after new years the issue started or gotten worse for some people....makes you wonder...

Not sure if really gotten worse or is just the same its already bad when ping is reaching about 1.5k - 3k MS.

RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Not MWO, but to specifically vancouver canada. Your VPN is proof dude, I don't know why you think PGI has something to do with all the backbones and servers in the route to vancouver from different areas of the world.

Our ISP here pretty much provides internet for the entire country and are known for their bad customer service (15-30min on hold). Also they will probably just blame MWO and say they are providing the correct down/up speed since my tracert and ping tests dont show the issue.

It was working fine for a long time why the heck did it have to break. And i've still yet to get a reply from PGI on my ticket regarding this issue. I've been following up and they still havent gotten back to me hopefully they do sometime this week. But thanks for your attempts on trying to resolve this Rich

[RichAC]

John E, on 02 January 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

Yes what i'm saying is that my tracert is different from my in game ping. This is supported by mastawolf's post earlier about PGI saying that connection tests yield normal results however in-game traffic are different.

I can believe that if you are referring to huge spikes. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Quote

Our ISP here pretty much provides internet for the entire country and are known for their bad customer service (15-30min on hold). Also they will probably just blame MWO and say they are providing the correct down/up speed since my tracert and ping tests dont show the issue.

It was working fine for a long time why the heck did it have to break. And i've still yet to get a reply from PGI on my ticket regarding this issue. I've been following up and they still havent gotten back to me hopefully they do sometime this week. But thanks for your attempts on trying to resolve this Rich

You have to tell them you are a pc gamer. And latency matters more then bandwidth for you.
My ISP tried to tell me it was MWO's fault too, after I was calling them up twice a day every day for the past week. Then I told them to start pinging random vancouver addresses and they will see its the same for any server in vancouver. They finally agreed and gave me the expert support number to possibly get a permanent route.

It could be true that I can't get the same route everytime going to vancouver due to alot of traffic, which is why it flutuates, but in my case, if I renew a different ip address, or if they clear my network or w/e level 1 support at my isp does, I will immeidately get a direct route and the lowest ping for at least 24 hours. They should be able to make that permanent for me without it being changed again for some mysterious reason.


But I am not gonig to bother them again until I start spiking or lagging again, which causes my client to crash or lose connection. or if i get stuck at a high ping. I know Im' complaining about 100 ping like a spoiled American. But I expect better from my ISP.

Whether its because of the new consoles, or backbone attacks, Only the NSA knows why this is going on I guess haha.

Edited by RichAC, 02 January 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[John E]

Here is another example for you rich, tracert is fine based on his ping which is 240-260ms but his in game ping is 1.6k
Hopefully it makes sense to PGI folks who are possibly reading this thread.

Gambit001, on 26 December 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

I've been experiencing bad ping since Wed or Thu last week.
I'm based in the Philippines and my normal ping in-game is somewhere between 240-260ms.
Today, I got a ping of 1.6k.

Ping and tracert to 70.42.29.65 yielded higher than normal ping.
Here are the results:

Ping Test

Spoiler

C:\>ping -t 70.42.29.65

Pinging 70.42.29.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=257ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=255ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=305ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=311ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=257ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=320ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=325ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=306ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=347ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=471ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=49
Request timed out.
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49
Reply from 70.42.29.65: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=49

Ping statistics for 70.42.29.65:
Packets: Sent = 188, Received = 187, Lost = 1 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 250ms, Maximum = 471ms, Average = 274ms
Control-C
^C
C:\>

Tracert

Spoiler

C:\>tracert -d 70.42.29.65

Tracing route to 70.42.29.65 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 19 ms 17 ms 16 ms 112.210.128.1
3 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 119.93.255.233
4 19 ms 20 ms 19 ms 210.213.131.58
5 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 210.213.131.89
6 255 ms 256 ms 255 ms 209.58.33.57
7 323 ms 324 ms 323 ms 64.86.252.45
8 314 ms 310 ms 312 ms 66.198.144.73
9 312 ms 312 ms 312 ms 66.198.144.58
10 303 ms 317 ms 299 ms 64.86.79.2
11 310 ms 310 ms 307 ms 63.243.172.41
12 262 ms 265 ms 273 ms 216.6.49.2
13 272 ms 275 ms 275 ms 70.42.24.132
14 277 ms 276 ms 274 ms 70.42.29.65

Trace complete.

C:\>

As you can see, the tests return normal to slightly higher than average results, but in-game, the minimum ping I could get was 400ms.
Most of the time it is somewhere around 600ms.
Hitting 1.6k after logging-in today is a new high. It also makes the game unplayable for me.
If I had premium time running, I would certainly and definitely complain.

If latency is not the issue, what could it be, and how could it be resolved?

VerTicaL, on 27 December 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Today tried a match and was a bit better(500-600ms) than before(1000-1500ms)
but still not at what is was prior to the patch(250-300ms)still lagging a bunch...

Tracert still shows a ping of 250 to 300 over 14 hops,which hasnt changed from beta

Would be so pissed if my premium time was in use(thank goodness its not)played 3 matches in my sabre mechs

Please investigate and naplam(with extreme prejudice)the culpruit

Edited by John E, 02 January 2014 - 07:51 AM.

[RichAC]

John E, on 02 January 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Here is another example for you rich, tracert is fine based on his ping which is 240-260ms but his in game ping is 1.6k
Hopefully it makes sense to PGI folks who are possibly reading this thread.

Ya i played with this guy today, he had 800 ping. Everybody was telling him to stop downloading ****, or that his neighbors are stealing his wifi. I was wondering if it was the same issue as you. I see you are both from the same country.

Maybe your IsP is doing some form of deep packet inspection on packets leaving or coming into the country and your being throttled in some way. Since there is more information and bigger packets being sent in the game iping is only being affected when playing the game. I really don't know why they would do this. Its the only thing I can think of.

One nice thing about Using a VPN, is that it also blocks your ISP from doing this. Maybe you can recommend yours to him.

Edited by RichAC, 02 January 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[John E]

RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

Ya i played with this guy today, he had 800 ping. Everybody was telling him to stop downloading ****, or that his neighbors are stealing his wifi. I was wondering if it was the same issue as you. I see you are both from the same country.

I have my Wifi on lock down and have been observing this issue since day 1 and i do not download stuff while playing mwo. And if I was downloading **** or someone was stealing my wifi wont my ping be higher when i'm on the VPN. That is a bit obvious don't you think?

RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

Maybe your IsP is doing some form of deep packet inspection on packets leaving or coming into the country and your being throttled in some way. Since there is more information and bigger packets being sent in the game iping is only being affected when playing the game. I really don't know why they would do this. Its the only thing I can think of.

Well thats a big maybe and alot of guesses, I just want to hear from the folks at PGI and see what their expert thinks given that they would have first hand access to all the logs and data.

RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

One nice thing about Using a VPN, is that it also blocks your ISP from doing this. Maybe you can recommend yours to him.

I did post recommending people to use VPN if they want to continue playing. But this is only a workaround and is far from a solution.

One things for sure though if they don't fix this they will be limiting their player base to specific areas of the world.

Edited by John E, 02 January 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[RichAC]

John E, on 02 January 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

I have my Wifi on lock down and have been observing this issue since day 1 and i do not download stuff while playing mwo. That is a bit obvious don't you think?

yes it is obvious, was a joke.

Quote

Well thats a big maybe and alot of guesses, I just want to hear from the folks at PGI and see what their expert thinks given that they would have first hand access to all the logs and data.

They already said apparenlty that they think ISP's are diverting traffic because of the new consoles. I disagree thats the issue, but I do think ISPs are rerouting for some reason.

The fact is your VPN fixes the issue for you. Which means it has nothing to do with PGI's server then. Your VPN is keeping you anonymous and using a different more direct route to vancouver. I think what I'm assuming, is a better guess then PGI's thinking it has to do with the new consoles. Because when if i was to hook up a playstation, its still using the same gateway and path. The problem is we are trying to connect to vancouver canada. And if you want to blame PGI, you can only blame them for hosting in a hard to reach or congested location, which is really our ISP's fault, not theirs.

and again not an issue for your VPN.

Quote

I did post recommending people to use VPN if they want to continue playing. But this is only a workaround and is far from a solution.

One things for sure though if they don't fix this they will be limiting their player base to specific areas of the world.

All they can do is pick a better location. I'm really not sure what location would be best. They would have to research different companies and locations. I'm not really an expert on internet routes and what location would be central and lest congested for routes around the world. Apparenlty this location was fine until recently, and noone knows why.

Edited by RichAC, 02 January 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[Kh0rn]

Well If they say they working on it I trust them I hope this is fixed or I will be asking for a total refund on all the cash I spent on this game if I can't play any more.

[John E]

Kh0rn, on 02 January 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Well If they say they working on it I trust them I hope this is fixed or I will be asking for a total refund on all the cash I spent on this game if I can't play any more.

same here...

[Tarl Cabot]

http://www.renesys.c...rnet-hijacking/

http://www.nojitter....curity-headache

http://www.csmonitor...g-strange-trips

http://erichelgeson....havior-and-won/

Quote

Contacting Arvig
I had previously chatted with a director at Arvig about a fiber install, so I emailed him directly with the information above. The response on the issue was less than encouraging.[indent]
Hi Eric,
Thanks for letting us know about your concerns. I can respond to both.
We have been trialing the DNS redirection arrangement that you noticed, and will more than likely continue forward with it. We work with a third party who has contracted with large internet merchants, including Target, to deliver coupon offers to our customers who allow browser pop-ups. Customers blocking pop-ups do not see the coupons. The response so far has been overwhelmingly positive (in view of the number of customers who have taken advantage of savings by using the coupons).
We have not seen any noticeable latency so far, but we are prepared to bypass the redirection should that be the case. We have also set up two DNS servers that do not redirect and you may want to use those in lieu of our defaults. They are: removed
Please feel free to contact me directly if you would like to discuss this further.
Thanks again for taking the time to write to us.
Bill.[/indent]
Viewing this as a value add to their customers and have no plans to discontinue. I was free to use a different DNS provider if I liked.

http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 02 January 2014 - 08:58 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Below is a quote from WoW forums when some players were reporting some high latency a few days ago.

Quote

Any pathping will follow the same path that your game packets go. This path is chosen BY YOUR ISP. Your ISP pays Alternet to take your ISP's traffic, and hand it off to AT&T, who brings it to the Blizzard servers through their network internally as I do believe Blizzards' servers are in major AT&T datacenters.

Your ISP is the one who decides the path to Blizzard (ie the peering), and not Blizzard. For example, my ISP's Network Director is a major Diablo (2 & 3) fan, so if there's a problem with the routing or peering to Blizzard, he'll change the peer used to another one so users' gaming on our ISP to Blizzard isn't impacted.

Essentially, there's insufficient capacity (ie not enough links) between Alternet & AT&T to handle all the traffic they're handling. This causes congestion. Congestion will cause packetloss, and increased ping times.

4 days ago was when some were coming back online following the ice storm - I got my power back 4 days ago after 3 days without power. Its possible some equipment was down, so traffic was rerouted and this one link between Alternet & AT&T is handling all that traffic still. Very possible they just haven't balanced the traffic back yet.

Either way, this isn't something Blizzard can deal with.. They might ask Verizon to fix their routing or ask Verizon to ask Alternet to balance their traffic better, but other than that, Blizzards' hands are unfortunately tied.

[RichAC]

Tarl Cabot, on 02 January 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

http://www.renesys.c...rnet-hijacking/

http://www.nojitter....curity-headache

http://www.csmonitor...g-strange-trips

http://erichelgeson....havior-and-won/



http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs

Thankyou for bolding that good point i forgot all about. When you use GRC's DNS bench. build your custom list, then click add/remove and click remove redirecting servers.
https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

DNS servers haven't made much of a difference for me, but it seems its helped some people. MY ISP got me midway at 60 ping again.... so i don't keep changing from 25-110 depending on time of day. I'll see if it stays steady. If i start spiking or losing my connection again, I have to call the expert team and complain about my routing to vancouver.

On another note, You know what blows my mind everytime I go to GRC.com? His is like the only site i ever see that is fully secure. I mean I never see that green lock on any website. Meaning its not only encrypted and HTTPS, but fully certified. I can't believe all websites don't do this nowadays, Even most bank sites are not fully secure.

Deplorable in this day and age. We are all vulnerable no matter how safe you think your site is. They can even use a man in the middle attack against us when going to GRC.


Mwomercs.com, may not be encrypted or certified. But its pretty secure. Apparenlty they should update to TSL 1.2 though.
https://www.ssllabs....?d=mwomercs.com

Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 03:00 AM.

[RichAC]

Welp I'm screwed,   I called verizons level 3.  and they basically just gave me the email for admin of tinet.net and blew me off.

Here is my route:

Tracing route to relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2     8 ms    10 ms    10 ms  L100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-175.verizon-gni.net [71.167.34.1]
  3    15 ms    15 ms    12 ms  130.81.185.220
  4    25 ms    84 ms    12 ms  ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
  5    22 ms    21 ms    10 ms  0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
  6    18 ms    16 ms    19 ms  TenGigE0-7-4-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.21.133
  7    35 ms    33 ms    34 ms  tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
  8    56 ms    54 ms    55 ms  xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
  9   118 ms   119 ms   112 ms  internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10   111 ms   111 ms   109 ms  border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.132]
11   116 ms   111 ms   109 ms  relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]

   I was getting 20-40 ping for months,  until the past couple weeks when now i'm always getting 100 ping.

That  tinet-gw.customer.alter.net address,  the level 3 rep claimed wasn't owned by verizon.   But I found out it actually is....since the abuse and other mail addresess for that server is verizonbusiness.com  on the whois arin database. Records show it was also originally ANS, then bought by MCI,  and then bought by verizon.     Its also a server in Brooklyn NY right near me when I utrace to it.   For some reason this server keeps routing me through europe to get to canada.  I guess because it is just searching for the closest ping no matter where it is.   And that happens to be Germany at the moment believe it or not.

I had my chance to talk to a level 3 guy when i first called today,  but that was my only chance,   and he might not of been lying and just mistaken when seeing the tinet at the beginning of the domain name.  And its true after the 6th hop the route always changes and it might be out of their hands I don't know.  And now they are just giving me the run around.

But then the problem is the ping jumps when connecting to that Internap server.....which I believe is also PGI's host company.    

I don't know who is to blame...I'm at a loss for words and pretty depressed right now.

Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 05:00 PM.

[RichAC]

All of a sudden at these crazy offpeak hours I have decent ping, going the exact same route.

Tracing route to relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 6 ms 11 ms 6 ms L100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-175.verizon-gni.net [71.167.34.1]
3 10 ms 11 ms 12 ms 130.81.185.220
4 88 ms 9 ms 11 ms ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
5 8 ms 11 ms 11 ms 0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
6 14 ms 21 ms 11 ms TenGigE0-7-0-4.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.25.226]
7 14 ms 10 ms 10 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
8 26 ms 29 ms 28 ms xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
9 23 ms 22 ms 22 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10 39 ms 39 ms 40 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.1
32]
11 38 ms 39 ms 39 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]

Trace complete.

The main difference is internap, the ping is 22 instead of 112. Which is the same difference of ping in game I have been experiencing.

I now also believe it has more to do with PGI's host rather then my ISP or the route. They either keep getting DDOs'd or they just can't handle their load. Fridays do always seem to the be the worst for w/e reason.

Edited by RichAC, 04 January 2014 - 02:00 AM.

[VerTicaL]

Still Experiencing the same issues...sometime abit better but most of the time completly unplayable

tracert mwomercs.com

Tracing route to mwomercs.com [70.42.29.74]
over a maximum of 30 hops:


5 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms 165.165.216.221
6 225 ms 226 ms 225 ms ams-ip-hsll-1-gig-7-1-0.telkom-ipnet.co.za [196.43.9.90]
7 224 ms 224 ms 224 ms te2-5.ccr01.ams07.atlas.cogentco.com [149.6.60.69]
8 220 ms 220 ms 222 ms te0-7-0-35.ccr21.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.74.174]
9 222 ms 222 ms 223 ms be2182.ccr21.lpl01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.77.246]
10 293 ms 292 ms 292 ms be2384.ccr21.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.44.137]
11 308 ms 308 ms 307 ms be2090.ccr21.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.30.205]
12 306 ms 306 ms 306 ms 38.104.159.26
13 300 ms 300 ms 300 ms border1.te9-1-bbnet2.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.196]

All other internet traffic is fine,pretty certain its an issue wth the game/servers as it only occured after Dec' 17 patch

[RichAC]

Well it is the time of year there is alot of malicious crazies out there wreaking havoc on the internet,    also too cold to go outside so more people online.  Europe might just be more unlucky with the traffic.  Could be more people started playing MWO again after the patch.

All I know is my ping in game just dropped from in the 100s,  to in the 20s.   and I'm going the same exact route... and the only server that has a major difference,  which also cooncides with my in game ping,  is that internap server a couple hops before the game server.

Then again that server is prolly not owned by internap and is actually owned by another company,   its a  tinet.net server that  in my route which is french or german, and which is who the Verizon lvl 3 dude told me to email and gave me their admins email.

But he prolly will be unable to help me also.  I now believe now those names at the beginning of the domain names is not who owns the server.   But what network that border server is routing me  to.(which even the verizon lvl 3 guy didn't realize)   So that tinet-gw server is not owned by tinet but verizon.   and that internap-gw server is not owned by internap,  but internap is the network that tinet.net server is routing me to.  

But it still probably means that they are getting high ping from internap on peak times,  and that it is internap that is unable to handle the load.


  I'm not an expert ,  but it def seems to have to do with load more then anything, and seems to be less to do with my ISP, and more to do with PGI's host.

Edited by RichAC, 04 January 2014 - 03:50 AM.

[ShinVector]

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

I don't know who is to blame...I'm at a loss for words and pretty depressed right now.

It's sounds like you already did what you could dude.
The ISP could probably solve that problem... But they just probably don't want to do anything for 1 residential customer.
If you truly find 100ms unacceptable... It is time to search for a better ISP...

However.... I play this game... at 230ms to 280ms most of the time... I would probably find.. 100ms very acceptable.. LOL...

VerTicaL, on 04 January 2014 - 02:14 AM, said:

Still Experiencing the same issues...sometime abit better but most of the time completly unplayable

5 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms 165.165.216.221
6 225 ms 226 ms 225 ms ams-ip-hsll-1-gig-7-1-0.telkom-ipnet.co.za [196.43.9.90]

Vert... Your in SA ?? Your latency is expected to suck in general. Much like mine in south east asia.

[RichAC]

ShinVector, on 04 January 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

It's sounds like you already did what you could dude.
The ISP could probably solve that problem... But they just probably don't want to do anything for 1 residential customer.
If you truly find 100ms unacceptable... It is time to search for a better ISP...

However.... I play this game... at 230ms to 280ms most of the time... I would probably find.. 100ms very acceptable.. LOL...



Vert... Your in SA ?? Your latency is expected to suck in general. Much like mine in south east asia.

I guess you didn't read my last post. I dont' think it has anything to do with my ISP anymore.

But Verizon actually is still working on it, the indian crew texted me last night(they are much better then the americans ) They are going to try and work on the issue and get it resolved by this weekend they said. They agreed that first network borderr hop server, right after the fios hops, is indeed owned by verizon and asked who the game server host was, and they are going to call me back tomorrow. But I doubt that they wll be able to do anything. I think its out of their hands, but they are good for trying.

its either tinet, or internap, in my case, and it seems its an issue with internap.

100 ping might be fine and not put me at a disadvantage to most other players. But when I start getting packet loss as well is when I worry I might lose connection or client will crash, (like most other players) which only happens under those circumstances. No matter how rare it occurs is unacceptable for me. Plus its a real tease going from 25 ping one day to 125 ping the next. There is no reason for that.

Edited by RichAC, 04 January 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[ShinVector]

RichAC, on 04 January 2014 - 04:32 AM, said:

I guess you didn't read my last post. I dont' think it has anything to do with my ISP anymore.

And you will never know since normally won't reveal such info to customer unless you press them for an explanation.

The usual cause is link congestion.... If they are working on it... It is good... Just keep this ticket open until it is solved that is the only thing you can do... You are a customer of your ISP.... Verzion probably has an agreement or pays for the link to Tinet... And from Tinet to internap... That's how the internet works... Re-routing is possible only the ISP deems it is necessary to do and whether they have alternative links.

Also... Usually packet loss causes you lose your session with the games server... I don't believe MWO even bothers to re-connect users so, you are forced to re-login.. Not really a 'crash'.

Lastly... To the people that keep complaining on the thread about link issue... Trace route and ping is usually the next step to check on. If you have determine that there is no problems on the local side.

[RichAC]

ShinVector, on 04 January 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

And you will never know since normally won't reveal such info to customer unless you press them for an explanation.

The traceroute reveals enough.  The problem is the border/link server gets bad ping when connecting to the internap network.    It turns out the verizon boerd/link server was not my problem.  It turns out going through europe was not my problem.  It turns out the problem is when linking to the internap network.

Quote

The usual cause is link congestion.... If they are working on it... It is good... Just keep this ticket open until it is solved that is the only thing you can do... You are a customer of your ISP.... Verzion probably has an agreement or pays for the link to Tinet... And from Tinet to internap... That's how the internet works... Re-routing is possible only the ISP deems it is necessary to do and whether they have alternative links.

again you can see what server is congested in the traceroute.  Paying for the link? maybe to tinet.  sure,  but thats no different then PGI paying Internap to host their server.     That would mean a new contract for a new server, transferring data, downtime.  Thats a huge step for my ISP to do to accomodate me.   It will be a huge step for PGI too if they decide to do that.

No ISP is going to do that for anybody especially one lone gamer.   Its not as easy as changing the routing....or rather administrating the settings on the servers that they actually own and have access to.  They cannot go into those servers which is why the verizon guy gave me the email for tinets admin, maybe they are contacting them for me now.  But  They ddidn't give me one for internap.  And tinet can't do anything if its getting {Scrap} ping back from internap, except contact internap.

Quote

  Also... Usually packet loss causes you lose your session with the games server... I don't believe MWO even bothers to re-connect users so, you are forced to re-login.. Not really a 'crash'.

yes true,  normally you will get a session lost message.  but its also possible for connection issues to cause the client to crash which I proved in another thread.  We can no longer recreate the issue I believe though,  because a PGI employee responded and said he fixed the bug.  Which was only an issue when clicking the exit button.    But  Who knows what others are out there.....the dreaded black screen and freezing issue I believe go hand in hand, and are also due to connection problems and hiccups.  Usually happening on fridays,  if thats not telling.

Quote

Lastly... To the people that keep complaining on the thread about link issue... Trace route and ping is usually the next step to check on. If you have determine that there is no problems on the local side.

If you read the thread,  you will see this is exactly what many of us have been doing.

Edited by RichAC, 04 January 2014 - 06:19 AM.