Author Topic: Skuzzy....alternate routes needed. (Read 1312 times)

Badger · « **on:** April 18, 2000, 07:23:00 AM »

Anyone know what's happening that's causing real bad pings times down at HiTech Creations end of the pipe?

Skuzzy...is there anything that can be done about this? Alternate routing?

cr2-2.mtnk1.on.wave.home.net 24.64.137.1 1
239ms
unused.mt.wave.shaw.ca 24.64.191.3 2
142ms
* Unknown Host * 209.167.167.229 3
137ms
203.a7/0.xr1.tor2.alter.net 152.63.129.85 4
119ms
195.ATM2-0.TR1.TOR2.ALTER.NET 152.63.128.34 5
112ms
137.at-5-1-0.TR1.HOU7.ALTER.NET 152.63.7.65 6
197ms
187.ATM6-0.XR1.DFW4.ALTER.NET 152.63.99.9 7
142ms
195.ATM10-0-0.GW1.DFW1.ALTER.NET 146.188.240.33 8
173ms
savvis-dfw-gw.customer.ALTER.NET 157.130.128.54 9
1400ms
applink-1.usdlls.savvis.net 216.90.2.66 10
1394ms
beta.hitechcreations.com 216.91.192.19 11
1431ms

Skuzzy · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2000, 08:02:00 AM »

I have been working with HiTech to get the alternate route for the MA back online.

You may have noticed that the alternate route for the MA is back, but currently closed.

We are checking routes and such and making sure the data does not loop.

Hang in there, it is being worked on.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Skuzzy · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2000, 12:48:00 PM »

Correction, even though the alternate MA says "Closed", it really is working. I think there are some limitations, but I am not sure.

Not having the courage to brave the MA yet, I have not tried it to see what it would do.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Badger · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2000, 02:19:00 PM »

Hi skuzzy.....

Thought I'd let you see how bad it is during what is supposedly the best part of the day for us to access Hitech Creations web site.

Something is seriously wrong with those last two routers.

Hope you can get it sorted out.

Regards,
Badger

cr2-hfc2.mtnk1.on.wave.home.net 24.64.137.1 1 99ms
unused.mt.wave.shaw.ca 24.64.191.3 2 16ms
* Unknown Host * 209.167.167.229 3 35ms
203.a7/0.xr1.tor2.alter.net 152.63.129.85 4 42ms
195.ATM2-0.TR1.TOR2.ALTER.NET 152.63.128.34 5 19ms
137.at-5-1-0.TR1.HOU7.ALTER.NET 152.63.7.65 6 56ms
187.ATM6-0.XR1.DFW4.ALTER.NET 152.63.99.9 7 58ms
195.ATM10-0-0.GW1.DFW1.ALTER.NET 146.188.240.33 8 69ms
savvis-dfw-gw.customer.ALTER.NET 157.130.128.54 9 493ms
applink-1.usdlls.savvis.net 216.90.2.66 10 658ms
beta.hitechcreations.com 216.91.192.19 11 495ms

[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 04-18-2000).]

Badger · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2000, 03:38:00 PM »

Hi again skuzzy....

This is the trace after you asked me to use alt routing. Notice that it's great right up to what I assume is the AH host.

Hope this helps...

Regards,
Badger

cr2-hfc2.mtnk1.on.wave.home.net 24.64.137.1 1 86ms
unused.mt.wave.shaw.ca 24.64.191.3 2 44ms
* Unknown Host * 209.135.96.22 3 61ms
if-2-2.core1.Scarborough.Teleglobe.net 207.45.208.129 4 49ms
if-4-0.core1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 207.45.223.50 5 49ms
if-6-0-0.bb1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 207.45.221.67 6 59ms
ix-1-1-1.bb1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 207.45.201.138 7 43ms
p4-2-1.r00.dllstx01.us.bb.verio.net 129.250.3.182 8 159ms
ge-1-0-0.a10.dllstx01.us.ra.verio.net 129.250.31.58 9 201ms
fa-5-1-0.a09.dllstx01.us.ra.verio.net 199.1.141.3 10 156ms
applink-gw.dlls.tx.verio.net 157.238.224.122 11 144ms
* Unknown Host * 206.149.40.141 12 717ms

Badger · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2000, 03:53:00 PM »

As requested...here it is again skuzzy...

cr2-hfc2.mtnk1.on.wave.home.net 24.64.137.1 1 18ms
unused.mt.wave.shaw.ca 24.64.191.3 2 78ms
* Unknown Host * 209.135.96.22 3 153ms
if-2-2.core1.Scarborough.Teleglobe.net 207.45.208.129 4 146ms
if-4-0.core1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 207.45.223.50 5 95ms
if-6-0-0.bb1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 207.45.221.67 6 91ms
ix-1-1-1.bb1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net 207.45.201.138 7 64ms
p4-2-1.r00.dllstx01.us.bb.verio.net 129.250.3.182 8 103ms
ge-1-0-0.a10.dllstx01.us.ra.verio.net 129.250.31.58 9 121ms
fa-5-1-0.a09.dllstx01.us.ra.verio.net 199.1.141.3 10 126ms
applink-gw.dlls.tx.verio.net 157.238.224.122 11 167ms
* Unknown Host * 206.149.40.141 12 769ms

Skuzzy · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2000, 05:34:00 PM »

Okay, there is a problem. It appears to be a side effect of the Sprint mess last week.

Apparently, Sprint injected some corrupt BGP tables into the routing data for UUNet and Savvis.

Basically, data is doing a loop-de-loop in some of the routers.

We are working with Savvis and UUnet to get this corrected as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, try the alt ma through Verio, it will revert to a TCP connection, instead of using UDP, but it may be better than the Savvis route.

I will try to keep you abreast of what is happening and when it is corrected.

My apologies for this mess, and all I can ask is that you hang in there while we do everything possible to fix it.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Badger · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2000, 06:48:00 PM »

Hi skuzzy...

Just an update...

Both routes got so unplayable I finally had to log off, actually got discoed.

This is the trace after I did finally call it a night...

As you can see, as the net filled up later in the evening, the situation got worse. I guess they'll have to organize a master reboot...

Good luck with it and I do understand the frustration you're experiencing.

Regards,
Badger

hfc2.mtnk1.on.wave.home.net 24.64.137.1 1 188ms
unused.mt.wave.shaw.ca 24.64.191.3 2 44ms
* Unknown Host * 209.167.167.229 3 46ms
203.a7/0.xr1.tor2.alter.net 152.63.129.85 4 40ms
195.ATM2-0.TR1.TOR2.ALTER.NET 152.63.128.34 5 26ms
137.at-5-1-0.TR1.HOU7.ALTER.NET 152.63.7.65 6 64ms
187.ATM6-0.XR1.DFW4.ALTER.NET 152.63.99.9 7 70ms
195.ATM10-0-0.GW1.DFW1.ALTER.NET 146.188.240.33 8 69ms
savvis-dfw-gw.customer.ALTER.NET 157.130.128.54 9 1175ms
applink-1.usdlls.savvis.net 216.90.2.66 10 1197ms
beta.hitechcreations.com 216.91.192.19 11 1226ms

bloom25 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2000, 08:08:00 PM »

I don't know if this will help you, but here is my connect. It has been very good today. (Not the alt route btw.)

Target Name: beta.hitechcreations.com
IP: 216.91.192.19 (04/18/2000 6:12 PST GMT-8)

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms orstsw4-gw.ORST.EDU [128.193.140.1]
2 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms orstbrdr-gw.ORST.EDU [128.193.6.1]
3 1 ms 1 ms 202 ms 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 1 ms corvallis-hub.nero.net [199.201.139.9]
4 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms 5 ms 6 ms 6 ms 5 ms 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms ptld-hub.nero.net [207.98.64.30]
5 152 ms 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms 6 ms 8 ms 7 ms 6 ms ptld-isp.nero.net [207.98.64.178]
6 7 ms 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 6 ms 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 6 ms 906.Hssi8-0-0.GW1.POR2.ALTER.NET [157.130.176.33]
7 11 ms 12 ms 10 ms 10 ms 9 ms 13 ms 10 ms 12 ms 10 ms 10 ms 121.ATM3-0.XR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET [146.188.200.186]
8 12 ms 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms 10 ms 13 ms 11 ms 13 ms 11 ms 14 ms 295.ATM2-0.TR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET [146.188.200.106]
9 57 ms 58 ms 59 ms 57 ms 57 ms 57 ms 58 ms 58 ms 58 ms 58 ms 110.ATM7-0.TR1.DFW4.ALTER.NET [146.188.137.29]
10 57 ms 58 ms 57 ms 59 ms 57 ms 59 ms 59 ms 59 ms 58 ms 58 ms 199.ATM6-0.XR1.DFW4.ALTER.NET [146.188.240.49]
11 58 ms 60 ms 58 ms 58 ms 58 ms 58 ms 58 ms 57 ms 59 ms 57 ms 195.ATM11-0-0.GW1.DFW1.ALTER.NET [146.188.240.41]
12 62 ms 59 ms 59 ms 60 ms 147 ms 60 ms 59 ms 59 ms 60 ms 60 ms savvis-dfw-gw.customer.ALTER.NET [157.130.128.54]
13 64 ms 66 ms 75 ms 64 ms 63 ms 82 ms 64 ms 72 ms 79 ms 71 ms applink-1.usdlls.savvis.net [216.90.2.66]
14 63 ms 64 ms 63 ms 64 ms 85 ms 63 ms 65 ms 67 ms 81 ms 66 ms beta.hitechcreations.com [216.91.192.19]

------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

Skuzzy · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2000, 08:21:00 PM »

Yep bloom, you hit it just as we got it all fixed.

Looks like the problem with UUNet and Savvis is now fixed.

Thanks everyone, for putting up the info and puttin up with the sorry connects. Hopefully, Sprint will fall of the planet and we wont have to go through this again,.......did I mention I am an optimist?

Just wanted to let everyone know that the connects should be back to a smooth pace.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Sharky · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2000, 10:49:00 PM »

Skuzzy,

Can you explain what the differance between TCP and UDP is and is this something that AH is using that others aren't? The reason I ask is that one thing I have noticed between Ace High and Warbirds is the lack of microwarps in AH. In Warbirds I know that if I am with in 200 yds or less of a con, when he changes direction (ie rolls from a right hand turn to a left) he is gonna "jump" 50-100 ft. Tonight I was in the TA working with a student and at one point I wound up on his 5 o'clock at no more than 25 feet distance and when he manuvered it was smooth as glass. His plane looked like it was kinda shaking a little but other than that perfectly smooth.

Is this due to that UDP or is it the smoothing code that AH seems to have perfected. With WBs gunnery and damage model you are forced to get up close and personel to kill a con, but the conections just can't handle it, I've all but stopped flying there and this is a major reason why.

Anyway whatever it is keep it up, I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've seen warps in AH. Good Work.

Sharky

Skuzzy · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2000, 09:26:00 AM »

While I cannot comment on how AH makes use of the various protocols, and they should really not be telling anyone how it all works, (Trade secrets and such) I can tell you the difference between the two packet types.

TCP packets are garanteed to be delivered, even if they are out of order, they will be delivered. Sounds like this the type of packet all games should use, doesn't it? BUZZZTTT! Sorry, you don't get the million dollars!
TCP packets require an ACK packet (acknowledgement) so the sending stack can move on to the next packet. Now, in the TCP stack, there is a sliding window that allows X number of packets to be sent without requiring an ACK, but all packets have to be ACK'ed. If the ACK does not happen according to the TTL (time to live) info in the packet, the packet is retransmitted.

UDP, on the other hand does not require the overhead of an ACK and does not have a TTL. They are merrily sent as fast as the sending system can do it. They can be lost on the Internet, or in any number of places. I might note here, that with high speed Internet connections, UDP packets can get lost by your computer, if it is not fast/efficient enough to keep up.

This makes UDP very efficient at the expense of accurate delivery of data.

Hope this helps.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Badger · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2000, 11:59:00 AM »

Seems to be working much better now skuzzy....

Thanks again for your efforts....

Regards,
Badger

Destination: 216.91.192.19

-#--------------Node Name---------------IP Address------Location-----------RT*--High---Low---Avg-Tot---D-Who
1 vaio500-doug- 142.194.182.248 43.967N, 79.250W 0 0 0 0 1 0
2 s16e2-xa105h1-toro-pdi.attcanada.net 142.194.161.33 43.658N, 79.367W 138 138 138 138 1 0
3 e5-0-4-xa01-toro-pdr.attcanada.net 142.194.161.34 43.658N, 79.367W 152 152 152 152 1 0
4 142.194.4.2 Unknown 146 146 146 146 1 0
5 206.191.80.154 Unknown 127 127 127 127 1 0
6 12.125.164.5 Unknown 217 217 217 217 1 0
7 gbr2-a80s10.cgcil.ip.att.net 12.123.4.162 41.883N, 87.625W 204 204 204 204 1 0
8 gbr4-p70.cgcil.ip.att.net 12.122.1.181 41.883N, 87.625W 216 216 216 216 1 0
9 gbr2-p20.kszmo.ip.att.net 12.122.2.29 Unknown 217 217 217 217 1 0
10 gbr3-p40.dlstx.ip.att.net 12.122.2.113 32.783N, 96.800W 240 240 240 240 1 0
11 gbr1-p20.dlstx.ip.att.net 12.122.1.165 32.783N, 96.800W 239 239 239 239 1 0
12 gr1-p340.dlstx.ip.att.net 12.123.16.173 32.783N, 96.800W 229 229 229 229 1 0
13 sl-gw17-fw-6-0-1-t3.sprintlink.net 144.232.193.69 32.725N, 97.317W 222 222 222 222 1 0
14 sl-gw17-fw-0-0-0.sprintlink.net 144.232.11.101 32.725N, 97.317W 329 329 329 329 1 0
15 sl-gw13-fw-0-0-0.sprintlink.net 144.232.11.62 32.725N, 97.317W 265 265 265 265 1 0
16 sl-dnetfw-1-0-t3.sprintlink.net 144.228.137.6 Unknown 238 238 238 238 1 0
17 applink-1.usdlls.savvis.net 216.90.2.66 Unknown 312 312 312 312 1 0
18 beta.hitechcreations.com 216.91.192.19 32.934N, 97.095W 260 260 260 260 1 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All times in milliseconds (ms), D=Dropped packets
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 19, 2000 13:4:24

Sharky · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2000, 12:09:00 AM »

Skuzzy,

Thanks for the information, but now I'm kinda sorry I asked. It sure seems that UDP would be a terrible way to xmit data for internet games just because it is prone to having high error or lost data even though it sure would xmit more data faster. Oh well as long as it works (don't look a gift horse in the mouth kinda thing).

Thanks again,
Sharky