New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
RamNode is in CyberWurx but we run our own network and hardware
QuickPacket now pass the traffic through nLayer that's why I'm looking for another VPS.
My friend uses RamNode but traffic to 66.150.54.55 passes by tinet.net, not cyberwurx.
We have Atlanta in COLO@
Any reason for CyberWurx?
What are you looking for in terms of transit then?
Better route and stability with the IP 66.150.54.55.
Atlanta locations are becoming rare.
Unfortunately.
Have you tried this?
Hm. I've tried tracing that IP from a number of locations; it hits border6.pc2-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net then dies.
From RamNode, here's the ping results for the above address.
Interesting. Could you recommend me a reseller?
Yes, this IP usually only accepts packets on port 7171.
RamNode is good most of the time, but sometimes the ping fluctuates greatly. Meanwhile the CyberWurx is more stable.
QuickPacket
Can you provide an IP address that doesn't have a firewall that blocks ICMP? Even the router before it appears to have a rate limit on ICMP, which causes the fluctuations.
QuickPacket recently started peering with nLayer, and overall customer feedback has been positive. We are planning to bring another carrier online in the coming weeks which should improve things even further.
We own our hardware and run our network - AS46261.
@qps what part of 55 are you in?
Not a fan of nLayer @Paulo or something else entirely?
Most of our equipment is in the same suite you are. We also have space on another floor. We've been with CyberWurx for nearly 8 years now.
I use the VPS as proxy tunneling, so any fluctuation in latency causes me problems.
I used QuickPacket and the route to the IP 66.150.54.55 passed through CyberWurx without any problem, but now is going through nLayer and unfortunately, for me, isn't good. The latency varies greatly in certain moments.
I have nothing against nLayer. My only problem is that it is not stable as I need it to be.
Maybe 66.150.54.254?
Hello,
We are not in CyberWurx although we are 0.8 ms away from CyberWurx's network.
You can ping us in Atlanta on 199.180.249.1 - we have IP transit links thru PacketExchange/Mzima Abovenet Cogent Tinet nLayer WVFiber and lots of peering on the TIE AIX exchange.
We regularly get praise from our clients about the quality of our our Atlanta network, so I should expect you'll find it good for you, too.
@Paulo We are adding a connection to Cogent (ETA January 1) which should improve the routing to your IP address since Internap peers with Cogent directly.
@qps I don't know if the connection with Cogent is already active, but the traceroute, right now, is the same as before.
@ramnet Thanks for the info.
Cogent delayed the turn up (they couldn't meet our original install date), but it should be sometime this month, hopefully.
@qps Is not working yet. But thanks for the info.
@Paulo - Cogent is online. Check it out now and let me know. Thanks!
In some moments all have the same ping 0.1-0.9ms, but now...
Host Loss% Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 2. gi3-48.mag02.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 16.0 12.9 0.3 192.7 42.0 3. te0-3-0-4.mpd22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.1 4. te0-1-0-3.ccr21.atl04.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.4 0.1 5. 38.104.182.242 0.0% 14.7 14.0 13.9 14.7 0.1 6. border6.pc2-bbnet2.acs.pnap.net 0.0% 13.9 18.4 13.8 184.4 20.9 border6.pc1-bbnet1.acs.pnap.net
Routers frequently have rate limits on ICMP, so it could be related to that. When I ran the traceroute to www.internap.com, it looked fine (under 1 ms).
What's wrong with nLayer?
It's not that there's anything wrong with nLayer. Internap does not peer with nLayer in Atlanta, so it routes through other providers, which adds latency.
Regardless, the issue is resolved now since we turned up Cogent so that latency is under 1 ms again.
Like I said, I use the VPS as proxy tunneling to play a game, and when the game lags I look putty and the ping is increased, sometimes with packet loss. But, with Cogent is better than with nLayer. Thanks for your attention to the problem, @qps!