--- Comment #23 from Pavel Selitskas [wizardist] <p.selits...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Pavel, thanks a lot for going through the trouble of collecting data via
> looking glasses, although I'd personally be more interested to get
> from users that experience the issues. I doubt PCCW's backbone has bandwidth
> troubles with us.
Yes, they can adjust priority for traffic coming from different consumers, but
that would imply issues had Hong Kong only a couple of 1Gb links to the West
> Oh, and finally, the third traceroute you sent was actually from Amsterdam --
> first hop is "ams", plus 84ms from HK to Ashburn is 2-3 times the speed of
> light or something :)
Yeah, sorry, my bad.
3 ge-7-0-0.hkg11.ip4.tinet.net (220.127.116.11) 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec
4 xe-11-0-1.was10.ip4.tinet.net (18.104.22.168) 232 msec 232 msec 236 msec
Here's a part of a proper trace from PCCW. Nothing special at first glance: it
moors to Seattle, although they route traffic through Tinet SpA, and it takes
quite a large amount of time (~230ms vs standard ~150ms). If you look at their
backbone network map, you can see that Tinet doesn't have submarine links
coming from Asia directly to Washington - they're all terminated in California.
I don't know why they make it this way, could their maps be just outdated :)
Their ping result a half more than normal is not okay though.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list