-
Question of the day ~ Should third party insurance be mandatory?
Cool Ideas Fibre ISP – Feedback Thread 4
- Thread starter TheRoDent
- Start date
@PBCool I mean no disrespect but it does not make sense, please explain? It is the fourth day that I get "international" 170ms instead of 20ms ping.
All my friends on competing local ISPs has no such issue. And on our Rocket League group I got no confirmation from anyone else having this issue. Please have a look at the following two WinMTRs.
Here is tonight's WinMTR via my Cool Ideas account (versus competing ISP after):
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| 192.168.1.1 - 0 | 129 | 129 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| u6q-cust.coolideas.co.za - 0 | 129 | 129 | 1 | 2 | 37 | 2 |
| 100.98.0.1 - 0 | 129 | 129 | 1 | 2 | 38 | 2 |
| 100.98.0.49 - 0 | 129 | 129 | 16 | 17 | 52 | 18 |
| 100.99.0.180 - 0 | 129 | 129 | 16 | 17 | 51 | 18 |
| i3d.jinx.net.za - 0 | 129 | 129 | 159 | 162 | 231 | 160 |
| hosted-by.i3d.net - 0 | 129 | 129 | 159 | 160 | 206 | 161 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider
Friend's WinMTR to same local server via competing local ISP:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| dlinkrouter - 0 | 1048 | 1048 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| 102-182-101-1.ip.afrihost.joburg - 0 | 1048 | 1048 | 2 | 5 | 123 | 2 |
| lucopel.net.afrihost.co.za - 0 | 1049 | 1049 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 1 |
| 169-1-21-91.ip.afrihost.co.za - 0 | 1048 | 1048 | 1 | 1 | 29 | 1 |
| i3d.ixp.joburg - 0 | 1048 | 1048 | 1 | 3 | 66 | 2 |
| hosted-by.i3d.net - 0 | 1048 | 1048 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 1 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v1.00 GPLv2 (original by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider)
Edited post: IP used to test against, Rocket League server @ 185.179.201.74
Last edited:
TheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,963
How would a region lock control game hacking, if they are in control of the server in any case? This just smells of a badly implemented game server, and/or client.
Server regionality will never be able to help in the scenario of "hacking". In fact community servers will probably do better, since communities tend to self-moderate.
A server should never trust a client, but it's also nigh impossible to control what a client does with memory hacking or injection. But a good game should never trust a client, and allow them to do extraordinary things, like warping instantly, or speedhacking. Client-side "reveal" hacking will always be a problem, but in a good game design it shouldn't matter when it comes down to melee. Anyway, this could be a very long discussion.... I've had these kind of conversations about FPS "trust" for more than 15 years.
And yes, I've built games. FPS ones. And have had to deal with all of this.
Attachments
Last edited:
TheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,963
Which is wrong. You should be able to choose with whom, and where you want to play.
Gaming is a social thing. Not a ping/slot-decided-by-a-gaming-company thing.
Blizzard seems to have fixed their routing, ping back to normal again
Code:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| 10.0.0.1 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 154.0.0.246 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 |
| 100.98.0.3 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 |
| 100.99.0.126 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 150 | 150 | 151 | 151 |
| 100.98.1.98 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 151 | 151 | 151 | 151 |
| 195.66.226.234 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 152 | 152 | 153 | 153 |
| 137.221.79.33 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 158 | 176 | 226 | 158 |
| No response from host - 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 137.221.65.77 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 158 | 194 | 340 | 158 |
| 137.221.78.69 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 158 | 158 | 158 | 158 |
| 137.221.66.47 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 158 | 158 | 158 | 158 |
| 185.60.112.157 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 158 | 158 | 158 | 158 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud ProviderTheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,963
Also, http://rodent.za.net/defenseturret/index.html
This was many moons ago, but Tribes 1/2, was one of the best community supported, and moddable games, and whilst hacking was an issue, in the end, in competive play, cheating wouldn't make a major difference.
Tribes 2 invented e-sports, and "casting/streaming". Justin.tv (which became Twitch) was founded by Emmett because of his passion for e-sports, and Tribes, and was part of the modding community that drove Tribes2, casting, and e-sports. Some of the very first justin.tv events were casted from T2 games.
Read this article about "Before Fortnite".
This was in the days when I still messed with assembly, game dev, and everything around it.
Now I just push packets and cry when I hear about where game servers are going, and how game servers are monopolised.
Last edited:
TheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,963
So, the issue is that i3d has pulled that server back to a location somewhere far away, or they have some strange return routing, but they are still advertising the IP at local exchanges, such as JINX.
We hand over traffic to them from our network at JINX, and from there we are not entirely in control from that point further on.
They made a change, and we didn't, so it's worse now, but it's not our fault, if that makes sense ?
I would appreciate if you can PM me your IP address, so I can just check the source as well.
However it seems from the Afrihost trace that the NAPAfrica path is better, which probably means i3d is neglecting their JINX peering, so I will chat to our BGP engineers to rather prefer the NAP route, which brings me to my next point...
I'm really starting to dislike JINX (not specifically for this reason), and think that as a future policy we're just going to generally weight JINX lower. It just seems like in general peers care more about their NAP activities, than JINX.
We will fix this for you.
Last edited:
TheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,963
This seems to have returned to local pings, but we will still investigate better routing, and prefer NAP.
RonSwanson
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 21, 2018
- Messages
- 11,508
Hey @TheRoDent and @PBCool , just a shout out to you guys the thank you for the great support that you give us here on MyBB. Much appreciated.
That was all fine, but I think I see the issue. The out of order is the hint. I am getting duplicate packets at times.
Why would I be getting the same packet 3 times? I assume in TCP, this will cause a retry.
Code:
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 1793 and received packet = 1801 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 1794 and received packet = 1802 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 1795 and received packet = 1802 AND SP = 4
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 1796 and received packet = 1802 AND SP = 4
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 19.9 Mbits/sec 0.607 ms 4/304 (1.3%)
CrypticZA
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,279
Its not to control hacking but more to keep it in a region and to stop rage hacking so in the case of PUBG the Asian countries were apparently hacking on purpose in the EU lobbies because of something that happened I can't remember what but in the end it was like a "we don't like you we are going to make sure you don't have fun in this game." I agree with the you should play wherever you want but some game develops also say its not fair if you have someone on your team playing a competitive game with an extreme high ping it ruins it for the rest of the team, however you could work around this and have casual games selecting any region and competitive force a certain server.
So the games I play mainly Dota 2 and Apex allow you to select any region you want, however Apex within the last few months has grown so much that instead of choosing a specific server to play on you get assigned a region. So Belgium/Amsterdam/London/Frankfurt are all EU so you will get any of those when you select one of them and the idea is to get people into matches quicker. In their world everyone from one region should have ideally more or less the same ping to all the servers in a certain region, however with the likes of us, Google and Amazon transit screw this ideal world up for us.
Using a UK VPN the pings range from 145 to 155 however off VPN due to Google and AWS they range from 145 to 200.
MDKza
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 732
and suddenly it's up again - without changing a thing.
DYreX146
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
- Messages
- 615
Same thing happened with Escape From Tarkov.
Many people in EU and NA complained that people on their servers from other regions were "ping abusing" and causing them to lose fights because our latency was much higher.
So the devs decided to try keep everyone happy by giving us SA servers and creating a ping lock. Yet even now those same people complain when they lose because of desync with the server, so if it's not ping abuse now it's desync.
Ping abuse was just an excuse in my opinion because some very skilled players in the SA community, one of whom has over 10 000 hours in the game, agree that such a thing doesn't exist and it's just desync that everyone suffers from regardless of latency.
Because of this I now can't play with my German friends who helped me learn the game when I started playing 3 years ago since you get kicked from the server if you have over 165ms. Our servers are basically a PvE simulator since there's probably only 20 people playing at any given time.
CrypticZA
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,279
Use to get kicked all the time from Battlefield servers because of ping...
If you from CT you should be able to get 155 to Germany but i think JHB is 165 is the lowest
DYreX146
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
- Messages
- 615
I'm in KZN so it's about 180ms at least. Only CPT people can play EFT on EU but even they struggle often because the servers fluctuate up to 20ms extra very often.
This is what my server list looks like:
TheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,963
We didn't either, so strange
DeatheCore
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 814
You're using iperf 3.1.3 right? Would suggest using a newer version and testing again. There have been significant bugfixes and changes since then, including changes to UDP tests and reporting (no longer defaults to 8K blocks which lead to fragmentation).
Looks like BudMan has compiled v3.10.1 for Windows - https://files.budman.pw/iperf3.10.1_64bit.zip
Last edited:
Thanks.
@TheRoDent Here is 120 second trace. Every 5-15 seconds, there is a notable 3% loss. I still believe this is caused by the out of order packets that is sending back duplicates. 0 loss lines omitted.
Code:
iperf3 -R -u -b 20M -O 2 -t 120 -p 17001 -c cptspeedtest.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host cptspeedtest.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host cptspeedtest.cisp.co.za is sending
[ 5] local 192.168.0.43 port 54433 connected to 154.0.15.181 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.45 MBytes 20.5 Mbits/sec 0.037 ms 35/1818 (1.9%) (omitted)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.157 ms 0/1736 (0%) (omitted)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.36 MBytes 19.8 Mbits/sec 0.057 ms 18/1735 (1%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 2.27 MBytes 19.0 Mbits/sec 0.087 ms 88/1738 (5.1%)
[ 5] 15.00-16.00 sec 2.35 MBytes 19.7 Mbits/sec 0.040 ms 23/1736 (1.3%)
[ 5] 16.00-17.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.066 ms 1/1736 (0.058%)
[ 5] 21.00-22.00 sec 2.29 MBytes 19.2 Mbits/sec 0.072 ms 67/1735 (3.9%)
[ 5] 31.00-32.00 sec 2.32 MBytes 19.5 Mbits/sec 0.102 ms 44/1736 (2.5%)
[ 5] 40.00-41.00 sec 2.36 MBytes 19.8 Mbits/sec 0.143 ms 21/1736 (1.2%)
[ 5] 41.00-42.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 19.9 Mbits/sec 0.145 ms 5/1736 (0.29%)
[ 5] 46.00-47.00 sec 2.28 MBytes 19.1 Mbits/sec 0.207 ms 77/1736 (4.4%)
[ 5] 55.00-56.00 sec 2.37 MBytes 19.9 Mbits/sec 0.073 ms 10/1736 (0.58%)
[ 5] 77.00-78.00 sec 2.31 MBytes 19.4 Mbits/sec 0.091 ms 54/1736 (3.1%)
[ 5] 86.00-87.00 sec 2.31 MBytes 19.4 Mbits/sec 0.082 ms 51/1736 (2.9%)
[ 5] 95.00-96.00 sec 2.31 MBytes 19.4 Mbits/sec 0.161 ms 55/1734 (3.2%)
[ 5] 106.00-107.00 sec 2.25 MBytes 18.9 Mbits/sec 0.209 ms 97/1737 (5.6%)
[ 5] 107.00-108.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 6.262 ms 5/1735 (0.29%)
[ 5] 108.00-109.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.1 Mbits/sec 0.091 ms -5/1736 (-0.29%)
[ 5] 115.00-116.00 sec 2.31 MBytes 19.4 Mbits/sec 0.324 ms 48/1730 (2.8%)
[ 5] 116.00-117.00 sec 2.37 MBytes 19.9 Mbits/sec 0.079 ms 18/1742 (1%)
[ 5] 119.00-120.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/1737 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-120.05 sec 286 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.000 ms 0/208341 (0%) sender
[SUM] 0.0-120.1 sec 472 datagrams received out-of-order
[ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 285 MBytes 19.9 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 677/208337 (0.32%) receiver
jannier
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,925
You have loss on your connection. I ran the same for comparison.
Code:
c:\iperf3>iperf3 -R -u -b 20M -O2 -t 120 -p 17001 -c cptspeedtest.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host cptspeedtest.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host cptspeedtest.cisp.co.za is sending
[ 5] local 192.168.88.213 port 53757 connected to 154.0.15.181 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.45 MBytes 20.5 Mbits/sec 0.094 ms 22/1780 (1.2%) (omitted)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.077 ms 0/1712 (0%) (omitted)
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.052 ms 0/1714 (0%)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.068 ms 0/1712 (0%)
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.061 ms 0/1714 (0%)
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.105 ms 0/1711 (0%)
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.114 ms 0/1712 (0%)
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.057 ms 0/1714 (0%)
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.069 ms 0/1712 (0%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.074 ms 0/1711 (0%)
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.048 ms 0/1714 (0%)
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.082 ms 0/1710 (0%)
[ 5] 10.00-11.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.069 ms 0/1713 (0%)
[ 5] 11.00-12.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.058 ms 0/1713 (0%)
[ 5] 12.00-13.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.055 ms 0/1713 (0%)
[ 5] 13.00-14.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/1711 (0%)
[ 5] 14.00-15.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.083 ms 0/1713 (0%)
[ 5] 15.00-16.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.060 ms 0/1712 (0%)
removed some lines to fit the 1000 character limit on post.
[ 5] 115.00-116.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.062 ms 0/1712 (0%)
[ 5] 116.00-117.00 sec 2.39 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.080 ms 0/1714 (0%)
[ 5] 117.00-118.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/1712 (0%)
[ 5] 118.00-119.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.048 ms 0/1711 (0%)
[ 5] 119.00-120.00 sec 2.38 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.065 ms 0/1712 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-120.04 sec 286 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.000 ms 0/205483 (0%) sender
[ 5] 0.00-120.00 sec 286 MBytes 20.0 Mbits/sec 0.065 ms 0/205479 (0%) receiver
iperf Done.