Internap returns
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » Canadian » TekSavvy » Internap returns
page: 1 · 2
vonSchroeder @ 4th Nov 05:49PM:
Internap returns
It looks like the Internap transit has returned for the time being as TSI staff indicated a few weeks ago would be happening »Transit changes.
This should make those happy that have been complaining about routing to RISQ since the removal of Cogent. Internap provides a connection to Cogent in Toronto so routing to RISQ is back to the way it was before. Though TSI has indicated Internap will be gone for good when the current contract ends.
traceroute to www.usherbrooke.ca (132.210.244.44), 64 hops max, 72 byte packets
1 gateway (192.168.2.1) 3.078 ms 0.977 ms 0.949 ms
2 lo-100.erx01.tor.packetflow.ca (206.248.154.102) 18.794 ms 22.911 ms 14.905 ms
3 2120.ae0.bdr01.tor.packetflow.ca (69.196.136.65) 13.943 ms 13.817 ms 13.887 ms
4 border2.10ge7-3.teksavvy-5.tor001.pnap.net (70.42.26.113) 17.072 ms 14.279 ms 14.508 ms
5 core3.te2-2-bbnet2.tor001.pnap.net (70.42.24.195) 13.794 ms 14.144 ms 15.328 ms
6 te3-6.ccr02.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (38.104.159.25) 14.707 ms 14.532 ms 14.783 ms
7 te9-2.ccr02.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.25.30) 36.185 ms 21.832 ms 21.674 ms
8 te4-1.mpd01.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.133) 21.713 ms 22.111 ms 21.829 ms
9 38.104.154.62 (38.104.154.62) 21.889 ms 24.746 ms 22.129 ms
10 amtrl-rq.risq.net (192.77.63.18) 22.754 ms 22.290 ms 21.729 ms
11 dmtrl-rq.risq.net (192.77.63.50) 21.859 ms 25.444 ms 22.000 ms
12 usherb-gw.risq.net (132.202.62.94) 25.930 ms 25.907 ms 25.787 ms
13 usherb-internet-membre.risq.net (206.167.128.138) 25.396 ms 25.646 ms 25.552 ms
14 132.210.252.28 (132.210.252.28) 27.016 ms 25.274 ms 25.801 ms
15 www.usherbrooke.ca (132.210.244.44) 26.712 ms 25.781 ms 25.614 ms
reply
CoverIt @ 4th Nov 06:05PM:
Re: Internap returns
Internap was turned back on for some reason but I think it's only temp.
reply
evil_gusgus @ 5th Nov 07:52AM:
Re: Internap returns
They turned it back on because it got renewed or w/e for another year by mistake so it just on until the contract runs out with them.
reply
TSI Marc @ 5th Nov 08:32AM:
Re: Internap returns
yep, we got it back online yesterday. It will be staying until April next year.
--
TSI Marc - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
reply
anon @ 5th Nov 10:32AM:
Re: Internap returns
So call up Internap's NOC and have them route prefixes over other providers. They've been pretty responsive to us with those kinds of issues.
reply
TSI Marc @ 5th Nov 10:48AM:
Re: Internap returns
What would I have them change?
reply
anon @ 5th Nov 12:16PM:
Re: Internap returns
Why not just peer at QIX? You get access to RISQ, Bell, Videotron, Cogeco, and a couple more. Talk to Richard or Yves at RISQ about it.
reply
vonSchroeder @ 5th Nov 12:27PM:
Re: Internap returns
That would require Teksavvy to extend their network to Quebec and the costs required to do that. Why doesn't RISQ just peer at TORIX?
reply
nitzguy @ 5th Nov 12:49PM:
Re: Internap returns
Split the difference and peer at Ottix?
I know its small but...was just saying to try and be fair to both sides :). It wouldn't be too far for RISQ because I'm sure that there's a University in Gatineau that peers with them and it wouldn't be too far to go from there.
Just a thought...spitballing here.
reply
Guspaz @ 5th Nov 01:40PM:
Re: Internap returns
TekSavvy already peers at Ottix, but that doesn't help them connect to RISQ.
Peering at QIX would involve a business presence in Quebec, and would require that TekSavvy charge QST to all customers (a 7.5% price hike just to get QIX peering).
Since Cogent provides most (all?) of RISQ's non-peering bandwidth, the most direct route to RISQ is through Cogent. The cheapest/simplest solution to all this is to just get a small Cogent link (100mbit/s, perhaps?) and only route traffic to RISQ through it. In that manner, TekSavvy could cheaply get good connectivity to RISQ and all the schools in Quebec.
reply
justsomeguy @ 5th Nov 03:16PM:
Re: Internap returns
isnt it just fine the way it was before internap came back online?
reply
Guspaz @ 5th Nov 03:20PM:
Re: Internap returns
said by justsomeguy :
isnt it just fine the way it was before internap came back online?
That implies that it wasn't fine after? He's passing through internap in-city to Cogent without adding any measurable latency (1ms), so it's pretty close to an optimal route to RISQ.
reply
brad @ 5th Nov 07:34PM:
Re: Internap returns
said by Routing Guy :
So call up Internap's NOC and have them route prefixes over other providers. They've been pretty responsive to us with those kinds of issues.
Huh? The routes are what would be expected for the current situation.
reply
brad @ 5th Nov 07:35PM:
Re: Internap returns
said by vonSchroeder :
Why doesn't RISQ just peer at TORIX?
You're making too much sense! ;)
reply
justsomeguy @ 6th Nov 07:58AM:
Re: Internap returns
said by Guspaz :said by justsomeguy :
isnt it just fine the way it was before internap came back online?
That implies that it wasn't fine after? He's passing through internap in-city to Cogent without adding any measurable latency (1ms), so it's pretty close to an optimal route to RISQ.
No it doesn't imply that. It implies that it has actually been fine no matter how Teksavvy has routed it.
reply
Guspaz @ 6th Nov 11:42AM:
Re: Internap returns
So... What's your concern then? If they're paying for Internap due to contractual obligation, they might as well use it...
reply
anon @ 9th Nov 01:13PM:
Re: Internap returns
It looks like the Internap transit Why doesn't RISQ just peer at TORIX?
RISQ is a Quebec only not for profit entity, why does it need to peer at Torix? From what I read, it's Teksavvy customers that want access to RISQ. I'm just saying that peering at QIX would give you that and much more.
reply
Guspaz @ 9th Nov 03:46PM:
Re: Internap returns
Peering at QiX would also raise our bills by 7.5%, not a very good exchange for 10ms less latency to some hosts.
reply
vonSchroeder @ 9th Nov 04:32PM:
Re: Internap returns
said by Gurney : It looks like the Internap transit Why doesn't RISQ just peer at TORIX?
RISQ is a Quebec only not for profit entity, why does it need to peer at Torix? From what I read, it's Teksavvy customers that want access to RISQ. I'm just saying that peering at QIX would give you that and much more.
My view on RISQ peering at TORIX versus Teksavvy peering at QIX is from a purely economic standpoint. It is more economically efficient for RISQ to peer at TORIX than Teksavvy at QIX.
For Teksavvy to peer at QIX they must pay cost X to acquire fibre between Toronto and Montreal plus whatever other connection costs there are. For their expense they get access to AEI Internet, Allstream, B2B2C, Bell Canada, Choopa, Citénet, Cogeco, Hydro One Telecom, MTO telecom, RISQ, Vidéotron, VIF Internet, and ColbaNet. This is based on the list here »www.risq.qc.ca/en/network/qix. Some of these Teksavvy already peer with at TORIX so there is no benefit gained.
On the other hand, if RISQ were to pay the same cost X to peer at TORIX they gain access to all these »torix.net/peers.php. I will not list them all here. The point being, RISQ has more to gain by coming to Toronto than Teksavvy has by going to Montreal.
reply
brad @ 9th Nov 08:15PM:
Re: Internap returns
said by Gurney : It looks like the Internap transit Why doesn't RISQ just peer at TORIX?
RISQ is a Quebec only not for profit entity, why does it need to peer at Torix? From what I read, it's Teksavvy customers that want access to RISQ. I'm just saying that peering at QIX would give you that and much more.
Issues with connectivity to RISQ affect more than just TSI. Issues to do with RISQ connecting to the various other Canadian networks, whether it be major carriers or ISPs. Peering at TorIX for RISQ would be much more beneficial to RISQ and the member networks being provided transit via RISQ' network. It would allow offloading a substantial amount of traffic off of their transit providers but better yet keeping traffic within Canada and ensuring lower (in some cases considerably lower) latencies.
reply
freejazz_RdJ @ 9th Nov 10:33PM:
Re: Internap returns
But the cost to RISQ to get transport from Montreal to Toronto for which it receives no revenues in return and which would likely be more costly than cheap internet transit (Cogent et al.) makes no financial sense. Furthermore, I expect that larger players at RISQ/QIX have very conditional peering and would likely not accept traffic from smaller providers, much like Bell and others do at Torix.
Why buy expensive transport to reach a small amount of providers (ie. no the folks at Torix may not be the drivers of a lot of usage by RISQ members) when transit could be cheaper and more versatile?
reply
evil_gusgus @ 10th Nov 03:12AM:
Re: Internap returns
said by freejazz_RdJ :
But the cost to RISQ to get transport from Montreal to Toronto for which it receives no revenues in return and which would likely be more costly than cheap internet transit (Cogent et al.) makes no financial sense. Furthermore, I expect that larger players at RISQ/QIX have very conditional peering and would likely not accept traffic from smaller providers, much like Bell and others do at Torix.
Why buy expensive transport to reach a small amount of providers (ie. no the folks at Torix may not be the drivers of a lot of usage by RISQ members) when transit could be cheaper and more versatile?
Where is Bell listed as a peer at Torix?
reply
freejazz_RdJ @ 10th Nov 05:48AM:
Re: Internap returns
A company they purchased, Group Telecom, was a peer there. As soon as the transaction closed, that was killed off I think.
Regardless, if you look at the major comms providers at Torix, few are open peers. MTS, Sasktel, Rogers, Videotron, etc. I'm not sure how restrictive their peering is, but I expect that they look at the number of hosts they have or prefixes they originate and determine that nobody they is worth peering with. That is to say their network is of greater value than the others there, and those that aren't too small they peer with privately or not at all due to politics.
reply
Guspaz @ 10th Nov 11:52AM:
Re: Internap returns
Peering with Google through torix alone probably justifies the connection costs for an ISP; you suddenly get to offload YouTube. There are some other high-traffic networks connected indirectly to torix; there's a Steam content server on torix, although Valve themselves aren't a peer. Nevertheless, that's probably a decent chunk of traffic offloaded; I'm sure things like Left 4 Dead 2 preloads probably consume a decent chunk of bandwidth. Even if you just get two hundred customers buying the game, that's a hundred megabit right there.
reply
vonSchroeder @ 10th Nov 12:52PM:
Re: Internap returns
Steam content distribution uses Limelight Networks which has servers in Toronto and peers at Torix. I believe Xbox Live downloads also use Limelight. So both of those high-bandwidth services could be offloaded to a direct peering connection via Torix rather than transit.
traceroute: Warning: cdn.steampowered.com has multiple addresses; using 208.111.181.147
traceroute to valve.vo.llnwd.net (208.111.181.147), 64 hops max, 72 byte packets
1 gateway (192.168.2.1) 1.780 ms 0.953 ms 0.755 ms
2 lo-100.erx01.tor.packetflow.ca (206.248.154.102) 14.753 ms 14.624 ms 14.328 ms
3 * * *
4 gw-llnw.torontointernetxchange.net (198.32.245.94) 19.256 ms 14.161 ms 18.842 ms
5 cds144.yyz.llnw.net (208.111.181.147) 15.745 ms 13.813 ms 13.743 ms
reply
Guspaz @ 10th Nov 01:00PM:
Re: Internap returns
Your traceroute shows that they *are* being offloaded via peering, through. You're going through torix in that traceroute...
reply
vonSchroeder @ 10th Nov 01:33PM:
Re: Internap returns
When I said "could be offloaded to direct peering..." it was in reference to potential savings for RISQ, not in reference to Teksavvy. I realize Teksavvy connects to LLNW via Torix for on-net destinations.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC