Mweb cut local peering?...

S

Shadow_Boxer911

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I have a ps3 and i use my internet for gaming online mostly, and last night im playing Black Ops with a bunch of local friends who all have perfect connections and then me with a 1 bar connection (should be 4 bars) i have a 4mb. So at this point im confused and ask a friend why this is, he then asks if im with mweb so i tell him yes, and then hes like "Ja mweb have cut local peering" i was pretty pissed to hear about this but now i need to know my alternatives and whether or not its only temporary. Which ISP's still support local peering and which offer the best uncapped 4mb service. Thanks oaks.

I searched the first 7 pages to try and find the issue im on about so apologies if this has already been addressed.
 
Mweb is hosting the Black Ops servers, so you should have a latency less than 100ms!

Currently IS is the only ISP that is peering locally with all the other ISP's countrywide.

Hopefully SAIX & WebAfrica (Jhb) will start to peer with Mweb for free within the next few months, but I'm highly doubtful about SAIX though.
 
Mweb hosts the PC servers, i have a ps3...its only mweb customers who have shocking connections when playing locally, they must be retarded to cut local peering it makes no logical sense. I might have to go with Afrihost as they seem the next best option seeing as they peer locally. If anyone has any other info or feedback to give please dont hesitate to post.

Shweet.
 
Ah OK. I actually can't find any information on where the PS3 Black Ops servers are hosted. My guess would be that it is hosted internationally, but I could be wrong too!
 
You got the wrong info Shadow_Boxer911, MWEB are the ones that dropped all their peering charges - it is free to peer with them. It is the other ISPs that refuse to sign those peering agreements.
 
Oh hectic i never knew that, so what does this mean now? that the other ISP's are being dicks or do they have a valid reason not to sign those agreements? now that i think of it, it makes sense because i can play perfectly if an mweb customer is hosting. Will the other ISP's eventually sign these agreements or are us mweb customers gonna get screwed because of some boycott?
 
can't say i blame the ISPs who refuse. like 'give us your local content for free or peer with us via India because we don't want to pay for IPC anymore'
 
It's only mtn and saix that aren't peering with mweb. So tell your friends to stop using Telkom.
 
Qwikslver said:
It's only mtn and saix that aren't peering with mweb. So tell your friends to stop using Telkom.
Click to expand...
I think MTN is actually peering with Mweb again, or at least Hetzner is.
Here you can see my traceroute to mybroadband.co.za:
Code: 
 Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 172.30.0.129                      0.0%     2    0.4   0.4   0.4   0.5   0.1
 2. 172.30.30.1                       0.0%     2    0.6   0.7   0.6   0.8   0.1
 3. 41-134-xx-xxx.dsl.mweb.co.za      0.0%     2    1.2   1.3   1.2   1.3   0.0
 4. tengig-0-0-0.vic-lns-1.mweb.co.z  0.0%     2   40.0  39.7  39.4  40.0   0.4
 5. vl-92.vic-hscore-2.mweb.co.za     0.0%     2   43.8  56.0  43.8  68.2  17.3
 6. tengig-0-0-0-0-12.vic-up-1.mweb.  0.0%     2   43.5  43.7  43.5  43.9   0.3
 7. g-0-3-vic-jinx-2.mweb.co.za       0.0%     2   40.1  40.5  40.1  40.9   0.5
 8. static161-134.netactive.co.za     0.0%     2   39.2  39.5  39.2  39.8   0.5
 9. jh-cr-2.za--jh-pr-1.za.mtnns.net  0.0%     2   42.0  44.4  42.0  46.8   3.4
10. 196.44.31.99                      0.0%     2   41.0  41.3  41.0  41.5   0.3
11. 196.30.1.21                       0.0%     1   67.8  67.8  67.8  67.8   0.0
12. vlan9.hr3.jnb6.za.mtnbusiness.ne  0.0%     1   42.7  42.7  42.7  42.7   0.0
13. 196.30.213.108                    0.0%     1   41.5  41.5  41.5  41.5   0.0
14. firewall1.jnb2.host-h.net         0.0%     1   41.4  41.4  41.4  41.4   0.0
15. mybroadband.co.za                 0.0%     1   40.8  40.8  40.8  40.8   0.0

Mweb/WebAfrica users that goes through Johannesburg Internet Exchange cannot peer locally either to WebAfrica/Mweb users.
a) If you're in Johannesburg on Mweb (or on a Mweb business account anywhere in SA), then you can't peer locally with WebAfrica users.
b) If you're in Johannesburg on WebAfrica, then you can't peer locally with Mweb users.
c) If you're in Cape Town on Mweb, then you CAN peer locally with WebAfrica users if they're not in Jhb.
d) If you're in Cape Town on WebAfrica, then you CAN peer locally with Mweb users if they're not in Jhb.
^^ This is just from my experience, but I don't know precisely how things work between Mweb & WebAfrica.
 
Pada said:
I think MTN is actually peering with Mweb again, or at least Hetzner is.
Here you can see my traceroute to mybroadband.co.za:
Code: 
 Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 172.30.0.129                      0.0%     2    0.4   0.4   0.4   0.5   0.1
 2. 172.30.30.1                       0.0%     2    0.6   0.7   0.6   0.8   0.1
 3. 41-134-xx-xxx.dsl.mweb.co.za      0.0%     2    1.2   1.3   1.2   1.3   0.0
 4. tengig-0-0-0.vic-lns-1.mweb.co.z  0.0%     2   40.0  39.7  39.4  40.0   0.4
 5. vl-92.vic-hscore-2.mweb.co.za     0.0%     2   43.8  56.0  43.8  68.2  17.3
 6. tengig-0-0-0-0-12.vic-up-1.mweb.  0.0%     2   43.5  43.7  43.5  43.9   0.3
 7. g-0-3-vic-jinx-2.mweb.co.za       0.0%     2   40.1  40.5  40.1  40.9   0.5
 8. static161-134.netactive.co.za     0.0%     2   39.2  39.5  39.2  39.8   0.5
 9. jh-cr-2.za--jh-pr-1.za.mtnns.net  0.0%     2   42.0  44.4  42.0  46.8   3.4
10. 196.44.31.99                      0.0%     2   41.0  41.3  41.0  41.5   0.3
11. 196.30.1.21                       0.0%     1   67.8  67.8  67.8  67.8   0.0
12. vlan9.hr3.jnb6.za.mtnbusiness.ne  0.0%     1   42.7  42.7  42.7  42.7   0.0
13. 196.30.213.108                    0.0%     1   41.5  41.5  41.5  41.5   0.0
14. firewall1.jnb2.host-h.net         0.0%     1   41.4  41.4  41.4  41.4   0.0
15. mybroadband.co.za                 0.0%     1   40.8  40.8  40.8  40.8   0.0

Mweb/WebAfrica users that goes through Johannesburg Internet Exchange cannot peer locally either to WebAfrica/Mweb users.
a) If you're in Johannesburg on Mweb (or on a Mweb business account anywhere in SA), then you can't peer locally with WebAfrica users.
b) If you're in Johannesburg on WebAfrica, then you can't peer locally with Mweb users.
c) If you're in Cape Town on Mweb, then you CAN peer locally with WebAfrica users if they're not in Jhb.
d) If you're in Cape Town on WebAfrica, then you CAN peer locally with Mweb users if they're not in Jhb.
^^ This is just from my experience, but I don't know precisely how things work between Mweb & WebAfrica.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. WebAfrica don't have a presence at JINX yet.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys, helped me out a lot. I'll just wait and see what happens before i change ISP's hopefully everyone will just get along and be nice to each other for the benefit of the consumer :)
 
PS3 doesn't use hosted servers for cod games it's all P2P so it would stand to reason that with local peering cut you're seeing what you're seeing. Telkom have the best ping for P2P on PS3 locally hosted games so don't switch. From years of experience playing PS3 cod online, I and most the local guys know that Telkom are the best for stable local games
 
Srack0verflow said:
can't say i blame the ISPs who refuse. like 'give us your local content for free or peer with us via India because we don't want to pay for IPC anymore'
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with IPC - this is a different beast altogether.
 
Pada said:
Please elaborate...
Click to expand...
As mentioned the two are very different and are not logically/commecially related.

Practically, peering is the interconnection of 2 networks at an IP layer for the purposes of traffic interchange. In the context of the global Internet this is between the allocated/registered IP address space of the respective networks.

The commerical basis is usually determined by the relative desire & benefit for/of this peering to each network. If they believe they are of a roughly equal stature/size, it is generally done on settlement free basis (shared costs only) as it will be mutually benenficial. If one believes they are of a greater stature/size they will demand fees from the other since the smaller will be deriving more benefit from the larger's (more costly) network.

IPConnect is a (virtual) access service whereby Telkom transports traffic between the ISP's network and their local exchanges. IPC charges are based on the size of links(s) into the Telkom ADSL access network. The IP address space (& related traffic) used for each IPC implementation is that of the respective ISP, therefore at an IP layer this infrastructure forms part of the ISP's network, not Telkom's.

The main point is thus, from an Internet peering perspective, the size/stature/traffic levels of each network are determined at an IP level, the underlying transport (such as IPC) is completely transparent, already paid for and therefore irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Roman4604 said:
As mentioned the two are very different and are not logically/commecially related.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true, except that until recently (1990-2006?) Telkom (pre-Sentech and Neotel) was the only legal (and de-facto) provider of telecoms infrastructure in SA, and thus controlled all of the the IP transport links. Growing beyond this legacy and 'mindset' will still take a long time IMO...

P.S. I think the original 'question' was a typo, and barely justifies a lengthy response...
 
Gordon_R said:
P.S. I think the original 'question' was a typo, and barely justifies a lengthy response...
Click to expand...
Not sure about that, but the fact remains there is much confusion about the local peering situation. Even the title of this thread suggests that, there was no peering to 'cut', it was a commerical (transit) service that was terminated.

Basically MWEB has grown their IP layer network to a size where they believe Telkom & its customers derive just as much benefit from local IP interconnection as they and their customers do. The issue then is why should the other network have to pay Telkom exhorbitant rates (higher than intl) for the privlage of allowing this equally benefical situation to continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X