if using chicago tunnel -- why hop in NY?

[johnpoz]

Ok this seems odd to me, and would explain the higher latency Im seeing than what I would expect for a IP in chicago, since Im in Chicago ;)

Tracing route to tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [209.51.181.2]
over a maximum of 30 hops:


  3    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  te-1-2-ur08.mtprospect.il.chicago.comcast.net [68.85.131.153]
  4    12 ms    12 ms    11 ms  68.86.187.193
  5    12 ms    11 ms    11 ms  pos-1-15-0-0-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.93.181]
  6    13 ms    11 ms    12 ms  pos-1-5-0-0-pe01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.87.126]
  7    17 ms    13 ms    12 ms  208.178.58.61
  8    43 ms    48 ms    50 ms  HURRICANE-ELECTRIC-LLC-New-York.TenGigabitEthernet1-3.ar5.NYC1.gblx.net [64.209.92.98]
  9    35 ms    39 ms    34 ms  10gigabitethernet8-3.core1.chi1.he.net [72.52.92.178]
10    34 ms    35 ms    35 ms  tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [209.51.181.2]

Why is it going to NY, this issue with comcast or is this how it should work??

[cholzhauer]

Mine's similar, but different

Code Select Expand



traceroute to 209.51.181.2 (209.51.181.2), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1  205.251.163.1 (205.251.163.1)  1.640 ms  1.187 ms  0.943 ms
2  68.70.176.93 (68.70.176.93)  2.408 ms  2.618 ms  2.489 ms
3  bdr-rtr-b-gi-2-4-tol.cisp.com (67.211.160.41)  2.254 ms  2.612 ms  2.228 ms
4  ge-6-18.car2.detroit1.level3.net (4.53.74.61)  8.587 ms  8.551 ms  8.546 ms
5  ae-11-11.car1.detroit1.level3.net (4.69.133.245)  8.334 ms  8.484 ms  8.563 ms
6  4.69.133.242 (4.69.133.242)  14.233 ms  14.747 ms  14.264 ms
7  ae-23-52.car3.chicago1.level3.net (4.69.138.37)  14.322 ms  14.257 ms  14.685 ms
8  4.68.127.138 (4.68.127.138)  22.346 ms  33.294 ms  22.350 ms
9  nyk-bb2-link.telia.net (213.155.131.242)  41.544 ms  103.415 ms  35.372 ms
10  nyk-b4-link.telia.net (80.91.250.101)  36.238 ms  35.887 ms  35.850 ms
11  hurricane-ic-129714-nyk-b4.c.telia.net (213.248.79.130)  36.363 ms  36.232 ms  45.831 ms
12  10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.nyc4.he.net (72.52.92.45)  36.167 ms  43.979 ms  36.193 ms
13  10gigabitethernet8-3.core1.chi1.he.net (72.52.92.178)  61.968 ms  61.860 ms  66.462 ms
14  tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net (209.51.181.2)  61.661 ms  61.527 ms  61.628 ms


[johnpoz]

Does not seem efficient to me.. I would think there are better routes to get to something in the Chicagoland area vs going through NY ;)

After looking at the network map, maybe it would be better to just use NY or even Dallas?  Unless IPv6 sites I was trying to go to are in the chicagoland area, I would think it would be better to have less hops to the endpoint, maybe NY is only 9 vs my 10 or your 14..  I have to look to see what the path to dallas endpoint would be.  Is there listing of the IPv4 IPs for the different tunnel endpoints?

[cholzhauer]

I just looked for a list and didn't find one (neither did Google)

[johnpoz]

Well from looking at the tunnel status page

http://www.tunnelbroker.net/status.php

and then just putting ipv6.he.net on the end I was able to resolve the ipv4 addresses and and using the chi one clearly best response time, but would think it would be much better if didn't have to go to NY first ;)

[cholzhauer]

I saw that too, but I only added he.net to the end and wasn't able to get an address.

I'll have to check a couple and see what I get.

EDIT:

Looks like I should connect to NY
(average times)

Code Select Expand


tserv7.ash1 45.50
tserv13.ash1 42.25
tserv9.chi1  62.13
tserv8.dal1  94.72
tserv21.tor1 50.30
tserv4.nyc4 36.31


EDIT EDIT:

If you go to create a new tunnel, it'll give you a listing of both tunnel servers and IP addresses

[snarked]

Your problem would be fixed if HE and Comcast would also peer in Chicago.

[johnpoz]

Yeah that listing is nice if you click on create new tunnel - but what is funny is the NY one is listed as FULL ;) hehehe So can't use it even if wanted to.

Who do they peer with in Chicago?  Kind of pointless to have an endpoint in Chicago if people in chicago have to route to NY anyway and then back ;)

Who do contact to suggest they do that - comcast?  he?  Both?  I doubt they would do it per 1 email request - would think we would need to get LARGE number of people in chicago to request it.

[cholzhauer]

Ha that figures...I didn't try to create a tunnel in NY because I'm not sure I want to go and change my whole addressing scheme

[maestroevolution]

I know I'm responding late to this... (just dropped in to move some DNS stuff), but this is how the Internet works.

Hurricane Electric is in Chicago (and many other cities).

You are on Comcast (in Chicago) (and Comcast is on many other cities).

While ISPs peer with each other at multiple locations, they don't peer with each other in every city.  In your case, Comcast and HE peer via Chicago.

So, in hindsight, you may have lower latency with a tunnel to NY, that's still not a guarantee.  ISPs peer with each other at multiple locations for load-sharing and redundancy, and a failed link one day may shift your traffic to a different link (possibly in a different city), and when the original link is restored, you may (or may not) move back to it.

Welcome to the Internet! :)

Joel

P.S.  Personally, I vote for a Comcast--HE peering in Chicago, as I'm also here in the Windy City.  Windier than usual this week, too.

[jrocha]

Actually, we do not peer directly with Comcast. If you look at the original traceroute, you can see we are connected to Comcast through Global Crossing (glbx.net). And of course, GLBX is now owned by Level3.

So the obvious solution is for GLBX/Level3 to peer with us in Chicago. Of course, that doesn't mean that Comcast will get a more efficient route. They might still have to go through NY. The internet is weird like that.