[lugm.org] My adventures with the Mauritius Internet Exchange Point

Sun Oct 25 09:27:33 UTC 2015

:) I've always been among those to think, screw the bigger fishes and hack
our way in.

No correct peering?

No proper Transit?

Bitch please !

>From community of friends, spend a little bit more say for a group of 10
friends get 3 or 4 different connections from different ISPs, then make an
IXP internally for just themselves :D

Brain vs Politics = Brain wins.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Ashvin Oogorah <ashvin1611 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> MTR [WinMTR on Windows] might be your friend, to indicate where in the
> network the packet loss is happening.
> Appreciate if you could paste MTR results from both directions and also at
> different times of the day [peak v/s less busy hours]. Very curious to know.
>
> #mtr 154.71.9.70 --report -c 50
>
> As you can see below, no packets loss through IP Transit though:-
>
> ----------- From US:-
> rviews at route-server.ip.att.net> ping 154.71.9.70 count 10
> PING 154.71.9.70 (154.71.9.70): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=0 ttl=46 time=311.445 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=310.264 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=309.209 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=3 ttl=46 time=315.209 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=4 ttl=46 time=315.049 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=5 ttl=46 time=316.097 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=6 ttl=46 time=313.581 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=7 ttl=46 time=309.875 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=8 ttl=46 time=310.774 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=9 ttl=46 time=321.320 ms
>
> --- 154.71.9.70 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 309.209/313.282/321.320/3.556 ms
>
> rviews at route-server.ip.att.net> ping 41.136.241.246 count 10
> PING 41.136.241.246 (41.136.241.246): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=290.118 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=281.909 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=282.080 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=282.280 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=282.297 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=283.976 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=282.085 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=282.175 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=282.140 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=282.213 ms
>
> --- 41.136.241.246 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 281.909/283.127/290.118/2.395 ms
>
> ------------------ From UK:
> # ping 154.71.9.70 -i 0.02 -c 10
> PING 154.71.9.70 (154.71.9.70) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=268 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=259 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=260 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=257 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=5 ttl=48 time=260 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=6 ttl=48 time=257 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=7 ttl=48 time=261 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=8 ttl=48 time=268 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=9 ttl=48 time=260 ms
> 64 bytes from 154.71.9.70: icmp_seq=10 ttl=48 time=262 ms
>
> --- 154.71.9.70 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 251ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 257.369/261.750/268.976/3.921 ms
>
> ~# ping 41.136.241.246 -c 10
> PING 41.136.241.246 (41.136.241.246) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=269 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=262 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=264 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=263 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=269 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=268 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=263 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=263 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=263 ms
> 64 bytes from 41.136.241.246: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=262 ms
>
> --- 41.136.241.246 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 251ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 262.782/265.102/269.511/2.714 ms
>
> From above, also note difference in latency for Emtel/MT from UK v/s US.
> From US latency to Emtel is ~25ms greater than MT, however from UK they
> are very close to each other.
>
> From traceroutes/mtrs, I could see both Emtel/MT with Internet breakouts
> in London, although they could have diverse routing/transmission paths,
> load sharing over different Transit providers. As mentioned in one of my
> previous emails, latency is subject to many factors.
>
> It could be down to transmission paths [as illustrated above: US latency
> for Emtel v/s MT] which also applies locally inland as well, should there
> be any issues in local backhaul such as fibre cuts etc. E.g during fibre
> cuts in the inland backhaul, the backup transmission medium could be
> Microwave, copper or even satellite links, latency would definitely take a
> hit.
>
> That's probably one of the reason ISPs would be reluctant on guaranteeing
> latency, especially over the Internet where beyond some point they have no
> control.  With Internet, once your traffic is on the Internet backbone, its
> a best effort service.
>
> Cheers,
> Ashvin
>
> Ashvin
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Loganaden Velvindron <gnukid1 at yahoo.co.uk
> > wrote:
>
>> I decided to ask an Emtel Airbox customer to do some latency
>> measurements, and here are our results:
>>
>> http://logan.hackers.mu/2015/10/emtel-lossy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Linux User Group of Mauritius (LUGM) Discuss mailing list
> Website: http://lugm.org
> Mailing list archive:
> http://discuss.lugm.org/pipermail/discuss_discuss.lugm.org/
> Forum: http://lugm.org/forum/
> IRC: #linux.mu on Freenode
>

-- 
*Pirabarlen Cheenaramen *| $3|v3n
L'escalier

mobile: +230 549 24 918
<god at hackers.mu>
blog <http://thegodof.net> || fb <http://godify.me> || pgp
<http://hackers.mu/pgpselven.txt>
/*memory is like prison*/
(user==selven)?free(user):user=malloc(sizeof(brain));
P Save electricity & disk space. Cat this mail to >/dev/null 2>&1 after use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://discuss.lugm.org/pipermail/discuss_discuss.lugm.org/attachments/20151025/011fc9e5/attachment.html>