How will MWEB's peering link cuts effect you?

mystic007 said:
The table indicates peering between MWeb and Vodacom, but my trace route shows otherwise:

traceroute to www.vodacom.co.za (41.1.224.101), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 41-133-88-1.dsl.mweb.co.za (41.133.88.1) 7.501 ms 8.994 ms 9.604 ms
2 tengig-0-0-0-101.vic-ipc-1.mweb.co.za (196.22.169.134) 11.870 ms 13.149 ms 14.512 ms
3 vl-92.vic-hscore-2.mweb.co.za (196.22.189.3) 15.681 ms 17.352 ms 18.257 ms
4 tengig-0-0-0-0-12.vic-up-1.mweb.co.za (196.22.169.241) 21.744 ms 22.992 ms 23.625 ms
5 tengig-0-2-0-0.mid-1.mweb.co.za (196.22.169.219) 25.542 ms 26.833 ms 26.893 ms
6 pos-0-0-0-0.lon-1.mweb.co.za (196.22.163.230) 267.836 ms 263.785 ms 264.238 ms
7 149.6.98.5 (149.6.98.5) 257.459 ms 256.524 ms 257.419 ms
8 te7-2.ccr01.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.36.165) 258.022 ms 256.556 ms 258.327 ms
9 te1-2.mpd01.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.3.225) 258.626 ms * *
10 te1-1.ccr01.lon05.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.106) 256.008 ms 253.555 ms 254.900 ms
11 149.6.2.194 (149.6.2.194) 264.202 ms 249.901 ms 250.623 ms
12 196.43.39.22 (196.43.39.22) 449.941 ms 450.053 ms 449.296 ms
13 vodacom-gw.telkom-ipnet.co.za (196.25.253.110) 438.214 ms 441.979 ms 441.914 ms
14 41.0.0.23 (41.0.0.23) 451.509 ms 453.162 ms 454.524 ms
15 41.0.4.2 (41.0.4.2) 439.486 ms 440.661 ms 442.073 ms
16 vc-196-207-44-133.3g.vodacom.co.za (196.207.44.133) 458.769 ms 459.968 ms 447.998 ms
17 41.1.224.101 (41.1.224.101) 432.382 ms 433.332 ms 432.794 ms
Click to expand...
Routing locally now from MWEB Bus ADSL ...

Tracing route to www.vodacom.co.za [41.1.224.101]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms router.local [192.168.1.1]
2 14 ms 16 ms 15 ms tengig-0-0-0.vic-lns-2.mweb.co.za [196.22.189.12]
3 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms vl-92.vic-hscore-1.mweb.co.za [196.22.189.2]
4 17 ms 17 ms 18 ms tengig-0-0-0-0-11.vic-up-1.mweb.co.za [196.22.169.225]
5 17 ms 18 ms 18 ms static161-129.netactive.co.za [196.22.161.129]
6 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms 41.0.4.2
7 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms vc-196-207-44-133.3g.vodacom.co.za [196.207.44.133]
8 17 ms 17 ms 18 ms 10.113.222.133
9 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms 10.113.222.134
10 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 10.113.222.178
11 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms www.vodacom.co.za [41.1.224.101]

Trace complete.
 
The company first severed its paid peering through SAIX to providers like MTN Business and Vodacom and yesterday cut its peering link to Telkom/SAIX which means that MWEB now only connects to local operators which peer with them directly.
Click to expand...
could somebody please explain the difference between the "paid peering" and "direct peering" please?
 
dougatthewoods said:
sorry, i meant normal (not business) consumers.
Click to expand...
Well they sell to Nashua Mobile, I don't know to who else, and then there is all their wireless customers, but they must be used to crappy latency :p

The Trutherizer said:
Will you please state the facts MyBB!?

You state:
"International routing means higher latency and hence worsened service levels when browsing the web, but the community who will feel the effects of these changes the hardest is likely to be online gamers."

I have two major objections to that statement.

1. Truth - As far as browsing is concerned the service degradation is not global - It is only local content that will experience speed degradation and only if it is not on a network that freely peers with MWeb. If you want to know why it will not affect you so badly... It's because local content is almost non-existent exactly because the old pay for peering system makes local hosting too damned expensive. This being MWeb's exact point. The cost of peering in South Africa has made us pathetic.

2. Truth - The gaming community as a whole is not affected. Many games have to be played on international servers. WOW, Eve, etc... And as far as gaming is concerned IS which peers with MWeb is the dominant leader in the local game server scene. SAIX servers in my experience lag even when you peer with them directly. In other words... Why would you want to make use of crappy servers anyway?

Clue up FFS! Speak the damned truth and not half-lies.
Click to expand...

1. "It's because local content is almost non-existent" Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.... :p

2. It never said all of the online gamers.... Local gaming is big enough to warrent a note, especially all the gamers on the SAIX network...
 
Most Of the Competitive Community Plays on SAIX Servers. Igame,WA,Mweb,IS has a few servers, but with Do Gaming Leages being the biggest and using Servers on SAIX. Ppl are going to get accounts that can be used for Gaming only. Or Competative Gaming in SA Will degrade at a Fast pace. Games Like Eve and WOW and so on that is not Relaint on Local Connectivity/Peering that much and wont be affected. But those aren't Competative game tipes.

my 2c
 
Originally Posted by killerbyte
The table does not list the peering relationship between MWEB and Neotel.

Does any one know what the relationship is between them?
Click to expand...

ads said:
Directly peered in South Africa through JINX / CINX.
Click to expand...

There may be a connection between MWeb and Neotel at CINX, but it is not working properly (latency 230ms).
 
I assume xbox live gaming is affected by this right? Will the new xbox live SA servers be hosted locally?
 
Fearl3$$ said:
Most Of the Competitive Community Plays on SAIX Servers. Igame,WA,Mweb,IS has a few servers, but with Do Gaming Leages being the biggest and using Servers on SAIX. Ppl are going to get accounts that can be used for Gaming only. Or Competative Gaming in SA Will degrade at a Fast pace. Games Like Eve and WOW and so on that is not Relaint on Local Connectivity/Peering that much and wont be affected. But those aren't Competative game tipes.

my 2c
Click to expand...

Holy Capitalization Batman!
 
jGLZa said:
I assume xbox live gaming is affected by this right? Will the new xbox live SA servers be hosted locally?
Click to expand...

All p2p games are affected on Xbox Live. Gears of Wars and CoD are Peer2Peer games.

We played in a lobby last night where one guy was with Mweb and it was unplayable.

I was contemplating moving to Mweb at the end of the month but until this has been sorted I will stay with Webafrica.
 
roberth said:
WA dont have a presence in JHB!? I'm not 100% sure
Click to expand...

I have been complaining about this for the last 2 months - No, WebAfrica have no DataCentre in JHB and that is the reason every bit of traffic have to go to their CPT data centre if you are a WA client. It is not good at all - and that is stating it mildly :twisted: :mad: :wtf:

So, in simple terms - WebAfrica caters much better for their Cape Town customers than for their JHB customers. I don't know how much longer I can take this.
 
I tried to play on the igame servers just now but my pings are sky high
 
Tpex said:
Well they sell to Nashua Mobile, I don't know to who else, and then there is all their wireless customers, but they must be used to crappy latency :p



1. "It's because local content is almost non-existent" Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.... :p

2. It never said all of the online gamers.... Local gaming is big enough to warrent a note, especially all the gamers on the SAIX network...
Click to expand...


+1
 
bekdik said:
Can Telkom ISP users acces Mweb hosted sites via their local only bandwidth? i.e. once capped
Click to expand...

Nope. News24, Kalahari.net etc wont be available on local only for Telkom users
 
I think that Mweb gonna get shafted. They took a unilateral decision and I don't think hat their explanation that local peering costs are a cash cow is valid. I think there is a valid excuse for there to be local peering charges (which also occurs internationally in most countries) and I think that mweb is just using this to get thier name spread around as a local champion for adsl users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X