Cool Ideas Fibre ISP – Feedback Thread 4

Larry101

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
52
Same for me, Century City connect not working.

And as I post that it's back
 
Last edited:

Cerberus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
258
Latencies in DBN are higher than it should be playing WoW. Normally around 177ms tonight it is hovering around the 380 - 400ms. Any issues that you know of?
Sorry should say this is on Vumatel Trenched.
 

PBCool

Cool Ideas
Company Rep
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
11,112
Latencies in DBN are higher than it should be playing WoW. Normally around 177ms tonight it is hovering around the 380 - 400ms. Any issues that you know of?
Sorry should say this is on Vumatel Trenched.
What does a trace to uktest.cisp.co.za look like?
 

Jason-ZA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
333
Latencies in DBN are higher than it should be playing WoW. Normally around 177ms tonight it is hovering around the 380 - 400ms. Any issues that you know of?
Sorry should say this is on Vumatel Trenched.

I am seeing the same, but looks like the latency increase is happening after the traffic is handed over to Blizzard at LINX, so not an issue on CISP side, but Blizzard side i think, @PBCool can confirm.

My trace below: (Destination IP: 185.60.112.157)
1622741902220.png

I'm seeing the latency increase with CloudFlare Warp VPN as well.
 

Cerberus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
258
I am seeing the same, but looks like the latency increase is happening after the traffic is handed over to Blizzard at LINX, so not an issue on CISP side, but Blizzard side i think, @PBCool can confirm.

My trace below: (Destination IP: 185.60.112.157)
View attachment 1082701

I'm seeing the latency increase with CloudFlare Warp VPN as well.
Yeah the latency to the test site seems in line to what it should be so probably not CISP.
Though some of my buddies in Capetown are playing with us and saying their latencies are ok. 175ms.
 

TheRoDent

Cool Ideas Rep
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
5,695
I am seeing the same, but looks like the latency increase is happening after the traffic is handed over to Blizzard at LINX, so not an issue on CISP side, but Blizzard side i think, @PBCool can confirm.

My trace below: (Destination IP: 185.60.112.157)
View attachment 1082701

I'm seeing the latency increase with CloudFlare Warp VPN as well.
Yeah looks Blizzard related, not sure where that server would normally be regionally ?

It's definately taking a route to the US, or somewhere else, rather than EU. Possibly blizzard EU lost a route.
 

Jason-ZA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
333
Yeah looks Blizzard related, not sure where that server would normally be regionally ?

It's definately taking a route to the US, or somewhere else, rather than EU. Possibly blizzard EU lost a route.

I'm not 100% sure but the servers are definitely located in EU, my server hosted with OVH (in paris) is getting 6ms to that IP. Blizzard also tweeted the other day that they were being DDoSd as they launched the burning crusade classic on Tuesday night.

Would we be able to get lower latency via Cogent, or via the FranceIX peering?

The IP of the actual game server is 37.244.58.119 (doesnt respond to icmp but ingame pings is the same as the trace to 185.60.112.157)

This is my path from my OVH server:
1622742712452.png
 

TheRoDent

Cool Ideas Rep
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
5,695
MTN link dead again...

#COOL-20210603-696480

Hi, if there are no PPPoE servers found, as per your ticket it means that there's likely a physical link down, or that MTN has a problem from your POP to their PPPoE server.

MTN terminates the PPPoE themselves, so if there is no PPPoE server available it means that they cannot see you. Your ticket has been noted, and will go through the normal MTN escalation process.

It's not an issue we are in control of, unfortunately.
 

TheRoDent

Cool Ideas Rep
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
5,695
I'm not 100% sure but the servers are definitely located in EU, my server hosted with OVH (in paris) is getting 6ms to that IP. Blizzard also tweeted the other day that they were being DDoSd as they launched the burning crusade classic on Tuesday night.

Would we be able to get lower latency via Cogent, or via the FranceIX peering?

The IP of the actual game server is 37.244.58.119 (doesnt respond to icmp but ingame pings is the same as the trace to 185.60.112.157)

This is my path from my OVH server:
View attachment 1082715
Looks like Blizzard are moving prefixes back to the USA to deal with this alleged DDOS.

From a server I have in the UK, it goes to the USA, for IP: 37.244.58.119

1622743185354.png

So, Blizzard problems, not us. This is a 3rd party server, not hosted on our network (queen.cisp.co.za)

So, potentially they are letting certain transit providers such as OVH through on a direct path, but other such as Cogent (one of our upstreams) through to a different path.
 

Attachments

  • 1622743212040.png
    1622743212040.png
    52.6 KB · Views: 15

TheRoDent

Cool Ideas Rep
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
5,695
Looks like Blizzard are moving prefixes back to the USA to deal with this alleged DDOS.

From a server I have in the UK, it goes to the USA, for IP: 37.244.58.119

View attachment 1082719

So, Blizzard problems, not us. This is a 3rd party server, not hosted on our network (queen.cisp.co.za)

So, potentially they are letting certain transit providers such as OVH through on a direct path, but other such as Cogent (one of our upstreams) through to a different path.
I really wish blizzard and all other gaming companies would stop trying to "control" their servers.

What happened to the good old days of just firing up a CS server on any host, without the control of gaming companies.

90% of what we have to deal with today is dealing with gaming companies's incessant control over their servers, and matchmaking.

I would happilly offer them VM, or containerised hosting, and I have to no avail.

In fact, all game servers should be deployable using some sort of container system, that way, the game companies can have their "control", validation and everything else, and ISP's can use whatever infrastructure they have available to making gaming better.
 
Last edited:

TheRoDent

Cool Ideas Rep
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
5,695
I really wish blizzard and all other gaming companies would stop trying to "control" their servers.

What happened to the good old days of just firing up a CS server on any host, without the control of gaming companies.

90% of what we have to deal with today is dealing with gaming companies's incessant control over their servers, and matchmaking.

I would happilly offer them VM, or containerised hosting.

In fact, all game servers should be deployable using some sort of container system, that way, the game companies can have their "control", validation and everything else, and ISP's can use whatever infrastructure they have available to making gaming better.
As a brainfart to this statement, I do understand that even a containerized game server can be interfered with when run on a 3rd party server, e.g. memory inspection, memory manipulation, or even container filesystem manipulation.

However it's entirely possible for a container to pull an encrypted filesystem, with a in-memory key, obtained from a master server, which only allows a one-time decryption of the obtained filesystem, and validation of the server image to mitigate at least some of the game servers' image authenticity.

I suspect I may have discovered a patentable, or profitable idea here. Not that the concept is 100% secure when running in an uncontrolled enviroment, but it is certainly viable.

I used to develop anti-cheating systems for Tribes2, and it's nigh impossible to validate all sides (server and client) of a game.

Community servers are still better than alienating an entire userbase that could have a much better experience, and it really does go a long way towards boosting the longevity of a game.

There is a middle way to achieving a good experience for everyone.

1. Official servers (managed by gaming co), with official matchmaking, for people with Xboxes, consoles or who are just casual gamers.

2. Community servers (managed by whomever, in a container), with "invite only, or community matchmaking", and a simple flag indicating that the server is "modified, or community driven". This is how it used to work when I built games.

On official servers, all the in-game purchases etc, can be used, and validated etc.
On community servers, people just play for fun, and don't have all the swag.

It seems like a much better way than screwing everyone over.

The current state of gaming is kinda like athletics, except crippled. If you don'tt run 100metres in 10 seconds at a stadium in Athens, or Atlanta then you're not allowed to compete. In fact, if you're not running in Athens, or Atlanta you're not even allowed to run.

In the meantime, anyone can run a 100 metres on any athletics track they want in Vereeniging, and still have fun doing so, and possibly set a personal record. Just not officially.

Current gaming companies don't even *allow* you to run on a track in Vereeniging, so boycott them or badger them until they do.

Personally, I will not play a FPS game that doesn't allow me to "/connect 192.168.1.1" unless it's really awesome, or allows me to play a peer 2 peer game without forcing me into their match-making syndromes, and controlled global servers.

LAN gaming for the win.
 
Last edited:
Top