Re: Time Warner Cable YouTube throttling
I've been seeing the same thing and was thinking it was me. Just to add to some of the results here... Verizon FIOS 1 32 ms 3 ms 5 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1] 2 33 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-7.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.183.186] 3 22 ms 22 ms 21 ms xe-4-1-8-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.84] 4 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms 0.so-0-0-0.xt2.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.17.21] 5 58 ms 24 ms 24 ms tengige0-5-4-0.gw8.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.18.206] 6 * 76 ms 76 ms google-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.62] 7 25 ms 21 ms 24 ms 209.85.255.68 8 21 ms 34 ms 34 ms 209.85.252.242 9 30 ms 28 ms 31 ms 209.85.249.11 10 31 ms 29 ms 29 ms 72.14.236.149 11 38 ms 36 ms 36 ms 72.14.238.173 12 31 ms 29 ms 31 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8] Comcast 1 33 ms 15 ms 25 ms 68.38.220.1 2 8 ms 10 ms 15 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237] 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89] 4 14 ms 15 ms 15 ms pos-3-6-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.92.161] 5 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.26] 6 * 23 ms 25 ms 75.149.231.62 7 17 ms 15 ms 14 ms 209.85.252.46 8 17 ms 16 ms 15 ms 72.14.238.173 9 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8] Our datacenter 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 70.34.251.9 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233] 4 2 ms 3 ms 2 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174] 5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 72.14.213.61 6 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 216.239.46.248 7 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 72.14.238.173 8 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8] It would be nice if the ISPs and content providers could work out something when dealing with this much traffic and clearly needing to add capaicty. It's nice to dream too... John
I think your trace routes are just to their web servers. You need to figure out where the actual videos are being streamed from. I used the Developer Tools (Network tab) in Google Chrome to figure this out. The FQDNs will probably look like the ones in my trace routes. Derek On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:38 PM, John Zettlemoyer <john@razorservers.com> wrote:
I've been seeing the same thing and was thinking it was me. Just to add to some of the results here...
Verizon FIOS 1 32 ms 3 ms 5 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1] 2 33 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-7.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.183.186] 3 22 ms 22 ms 21 ms xe-4-1-8-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.84] 4 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms 0.so-0-0-0.xt2.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.17.21] 5 58 ms 24 ms 24 ms tengige0-5-4-0.gw8.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.18.206] 6 * 76 ms 76 ms google-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.62] 7 25 ms 21 ms 24 ms 209.85.255.68 8 21 ms 34 ms 34 ms 209.85.252.242 9 30 ms 28 ms 31 ms 209.85.249.11 10 31 ms 29 ms 29 ms 72.14.236.149 11 38 ms 36 ms 36 ms 72.14.238.173 12 31 ms 29 ms 31 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8]
Comcast 1 33 ms 15 ms 25 ms 68.38.220.1 2 8 ms 10 ms 15 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237] 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89] 4 14 ms 15 ms 15 ms pos-3-6-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.92.161] 5 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.26] 6 * 23 ms 25 ms 75.149.231.62 7 17 ms 15 ms 14 ms 209.85.252.46 8 17 ms 16 ms 15 ms 72.14.238.173 9 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8]
Our datacenter 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 70.34.251.9 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233] 4 2 ms 3 ms 2 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174] 5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 72.14.213.61 6 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 216.239.46.248 7 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 72.14.238.173 8 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8]
It would be nice if the ISPs and content providers could work out something when dealing with this much traffic and clearly needing to add capaicty. It's nice to dream too...
John
Yup... This might be more helpful. I went to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com for better comparison. Verizon FIOS 1 8 ms 4 ms 4 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1] 2 9 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-6.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.182.44] 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-9-1-2-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.144] 4 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.26.117] 5 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms 204.255.168.118 6 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms 144.232.4.93 7 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms sl-crs4-nyc-0-3-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.7.122] 8 25 ms 22 ms 24 ms sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-2.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.164] 9 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.25.15] 10 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 11 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms 208.117.251.184 Comcast 1 27 ms 31 ms 21 ms 68.38.220.1 2 8 ms 9 ms 11 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237] 3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89] 4 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms pos-4-0-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.93.233] 5 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms be-27-pe06.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.82.174] 6 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms 144.232.6.97 7 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms sl-st31-ash-0-4-0-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.3.169] 8 34 ms 32 ms 31 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 9 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms 208.117.251.184 Our DC 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mx1.razorinc.net [70.34.252.9] 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233] 4 3 ms 8 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174] 5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms as2828.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.68.14] 6 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 216.156.8.189.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.8.189] 7 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 209.48.42.86 8 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 208.117.251.184 John
Jumping into the bandwagon here to help out. Here's the result from RIT to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com, going through at least 4 hops through XO territory. traceroute to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com (208.117.251.184), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rit-west1-gw-014-vlan453.rit.edu (129.21.153.254) 0.593 ms 0.584 ms 0.576 ms 2 rit-core1-pp-west2-vlan824.rit.edu (129.21.8.93) 1.938 ms 1.941 ms 2.116 ms 3 rit-rit1-pp-core1-vlan2811.rit.edu (129.21.8.42) 0.508 ms 0.497 ms 0.484 ms 4 te-7-2.car2.Buffalo1.Level3.net (4.59.214.21) 2.293 ms 2.294 ms 2.282 ms 5 ae-4-4.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.140.242) 10.332 ms 10.339 ms 11.022 ms 6 ae-72-72.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.38) 15.274 ms 10.212 ms ae-92-92.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.46) 10.204 ms 7 ae-1-60.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.16) 10.202 ms ae-2-70.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.80) 10.174 ms 10.171 ms 8 206.111.13.65.ptr.us.xo.net (206.111.13.65) 10.160 ms 10.345 ms 10.336 ms 9 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 18.555 ms 18.541 ms 20.749 ms 10 ae0d1.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (207.88.13.65) 16.241 ms 16.322 ms 16.261 ms 11 209.48.42.86 (209.48.42.86) 16.673 ms 64.114 ms 64.054 ms 12 208.117.251.184 (208.117.251.184) 16.313 ms 16.306 ms 16.486 ms -MJ -----Original Message----- From: John Zettlemoyer [mailto:john@razorservers.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:19 PM To: 'Derek Ivey' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Time Warner Cable YouTube throttling Yup... This might be more helpful. I went to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com for better comparison. Verizon FIOS 1 8 ms 4 ms 4 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1] 2 9 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-6.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.182.44] 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-9-1-2-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.144] 4 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.26.117] 5 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms 204.255.168.118 6 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms 144.232.4.93 7 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms sl-crs4-nyc-0-3-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.7.122] 8 25 ms 22 ms 24 ms sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-2.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.164] 9 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.25.15] 10 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 11 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms 208.117.251.184 Comcast 1 27 ms 31 ms 21 ms 68.38.220.1 2 8 ms 9 ms 11 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237] 3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89] 4 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms pos-4-0-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.93.233] 5 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms be-27-pe06.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.82.174] 6 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms 144.232.6.97 7 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms sl-st31-ash-0-4-0-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.3.169] 8 34 ms 32 ms 31 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 9 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms 208.117.251.184 Our DC 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mx1.razorinc.net [70.34.252.9] 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233] 4 3 ms 8 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174] 5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms as2828.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.68.14] 6 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 216.156.8.189.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.8.189] 7 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 209.48.42.86 8 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 208.117.251.184 John
RIT is probably on a commercial circuit and from what i have seen on this chain so far, it is only affecting home/consumer users. At MSOE (msoe.edu) i dont show any latency but we are on TWTC. Anyone chime in if that is wrong. -Grant On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Mark Jeremy <mejndp@rit.edu> wrote:
Jumping into the bandwagon here to help out.
Here's the result from RIT to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com, going through at least 4 hops through XO territory.
traceroute to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com (208.117.251.184), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rit-west1-gw-014-vlan453.rit.edu (129.21.153.254) 0.593 ms 0.584 ms 0.576 ms 2 rit-core1-pp-west2-vlan824.rit.edu (129.21.8.93) 1.938 ms 1.941 ms 2.116 ms 3 rit-rit1-pp-core1-vlan2811.rit.edu (129.21.8.42) 0.508 ms 0.497 ms 0.484 ms 4 te-7-2.car2.Buffalo1.Level3.net (4.59.214.21) 2.293 ms 2.294 ms 2.282 ms 5 ae-4-4.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.140.242) 10.332 ms 10.339 ms 11.022 ms 6 ae-72-72.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.38) 15.274 ms 10.212 ms ae-92-92.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.46) 10.204 ms 7 ae-1-60.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.16) 10.202 ms ae-2-70.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.80) 10.174 ms 10.171 ms 8 206.111.13.65.ptr.us.xo.net (206.111.13.65) 10.160 ms 10.345 ms 10.336 ms 9 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 18.555 ms 18.541 ms 20.749 ms 10 ae0d1.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (207.88.13.65) 16.241 ms 16.322 ms 16.261 ms 11 209.48.42.86 (209.48.42.86) 16.673 ms 64.114 ms 64.054 ms 12 208.117.251.184 (208.117.251.184) 16.313 ms 16.306 ms 16.486 ms
-MJ
-----Original Message----- From: John Zettlemoyer [mailto:john@razorservers.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:19 PM To: 'Derek Ivey' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Time Warner Cable YouTube throttling
Yup... This might be more helpful. I went to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com for better comparison.
Verizon FIOS
1 8 ms 4 ms 4 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1] 2 9 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-6.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.182.44] 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-9-1-2-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.144] 4 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.26.117] 5 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms 204.255.168.118 6 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms 144.232.4.93 7 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms sl-crs4-nyc-0-3-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.7.122] 8 25 ms 22 ms 24 ms sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-2.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.164] 9 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.25.15] 10 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 11 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms 208.117.251.184
Comcast 1 27 ms 31 ms 21 ms 68.38.220.1 2 8 ms 9 ms 11 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237] 3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89] 4 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms pos-4-0-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.93.233] 5 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms be-27-pe06.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.82.174] 6 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms 144.232.6.97 7 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms sl-st31-ash-0-4-0-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.3.169] 8 34 ms 32 ms 31 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 9 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms 208.117.251.184
Our DC 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mx1.razorinc.net [70.34.252.9] 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233] 4 3 ms 8 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174] 5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms as2828.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.68.14] 6 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 216.156.8.189.ptr.us.xo.net[216.156.8.189] 7 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 209.48.42.86 8 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 208.117.251.184
John
Also if your upstream has Google Global Cache (or whatever it's called), the results can be very different I suppose. Does Google use different naming structure for IPv6 CDN? Maybe this particular cache does not offer IPv6. ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. 60 IN CNAME r3.sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. r3.sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. 1800 IN A 64.53.1.78 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION: r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. 60 IN CNAME r3.sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. Level3 peers with Google, I am curious why it hand the traffic off to XO.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Mark Jeremy <mejndp@rit.edu> wrote:
traceroute to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com (208.117.251.184), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 3 rit-rit1-pp-core1-vlan2811.rit.edu (129.21.8.42) 0.508 ms 0.497 ms 0.484 ms 4 te-7-2.car2.Buffalo1.Level3.net (4.59.214.21) 2.293 ms 2.294 ms 2.282 ms 5 ae-4-4.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.140.242) 10.332 ms 10.339 ms 11.022 ms 6 ae-72-72.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.38) 15.274 ms 10.212 ms ae-92-92.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.46) 10.204 ms 7 ae-1-60.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.16) 10.202 ms ae-2-70.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.80) 10.174 ms 10.171 ms 8 206.111.13.65.ptr.us.xo.net (206.111.13.65) 10.160 ms 10.345 ms 10.336 ms 9 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 18.555 ms 18.541 ms 20.749 ms 10 ae0d1.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (207.88.13.65) 16.241 ms 16.322 ms 16.261 ms 11 209.48.42.86 (209.48.42.86) 16.673 ms 64.114 ms 64.054 ms 12 208.117.251.184 (208.117.251.184) 16.313 ms 16.306 ms 16.486 ms
I had the opportunity to look at this from a TWC fiber customer in Ohio, and this did not seem to affect them.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Grant Ridder <shortdudey123@gmail.com> Date: 03/07/2013 2:22 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Mark Jeremy <mejndp@rit.edu> Cc: John Zettlemoyer <john@razorservers.com>,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable YouTube throttling RIT is probably on a commercial circuit and from what i have seen on this chain so far, it is only affecting home/consumer users. At MSOE (msoe.edu) i dont show any latency but we are on TWTC. Anyone chime in if that is wrong. -Grant On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Mark Jeremy <mejndp@rit.edu> wrote:
Jumping into the bandwagon here to help out.
Here's the result from RIT to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com, going through at least 4 hops through XO territory.
traceroute to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com (208.117.251.184), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 rit-west1-gw-014-vlan453.rit.edu (129.21.153.254) 0.593 ms 0.584 ms 0.576 ms 2 rit-core1-pp-west2-vlan824.rit.edu (129.21.8.93) 1.938 ms 1.941 ms 2.116 ms 3 rit-rit1-pp-core1-vlan2811.rit.edu (129.21.8.42) 0.508 ms 0.497 ms 0.484 ms 4 te-7-2.car2.Buffalo1.Level3.net (4.59.214.21) 2.293 ms 2.294 ms 2.282 ms 5 ae-4-4.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.140.242) 10.332 ms 10.339 ms 11.022 ms 6 ae-72-72.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.38) 15.274 ms 10.212 ms ae-92-92.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.46) 10.204 ms 7 ae-1-60.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.16) 10.202 ms ae-2-70.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.80) 10.174 ms 10.171 ms 8 206.111.13.65.ptr.us.xo.net (206.111.13.65) 10.160 ms 10.345 ms 10.336 ms 9 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 18.555 ms 18.541 ms 20.749 ms 10 ae0d1.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (207.88.13.65) 16.241 ms 16.322 ms 16.261 ms 11 209.48.42.86 (209.48.42.86) 16.673 ms 64.114 ms 64.054 ms 12 208.117.251.184 (208.117.251.184) 16.313 ms 16.306 ms 16.486 ms
-MJ
-----Original Message----- From: John Zettlemoyer [mailto:john@razorservers.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:19 PM To: 'Derek Ivey' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Time Warner Cable YouTube throttling
Yup... This might be more helpful. I went to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com for better comparison.
Verizon FIOS
1 8 ms 4 ms 4 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1] 2 9 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-6.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.182.44] 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-9-1-2-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.144] 4 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.26.117] 5 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms 204.255.168.118 6 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms 144.232.4.93 7 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms sl-crs4-nyc-0-3-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.7.122] 8 25 ms 22 ms 24 ms sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-2.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.164] 9 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.25.15] 10 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 11 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms 208.117.251.184
Comcast 1 27 ms 31 ms 21 ms 68.38.220.1 2 8 ms 9 ms 11 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237] 3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89] 4 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms pos-4-0-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.93.233] 5 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms be-27-pe06.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.82.174] 6 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms 144.232.6.97 7 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms sl-st31-ash-0-4-0-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.3.169] 8 34 ms 32 ms 31 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34] 9 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms 208.117.251.184
Our DC 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101] 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mx1.razorinc.net [70.34.252.9] 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233] 4 3 ms 8 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174] 5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms as2828.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.68.14] 6 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 216.156.8.189.ptr.us.xo.net[216.156.8.189] 7 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 209.48.42.86 8 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 208.117.251.184
John
participants (6)
-
Derek Ivey -
Grant Ridder -
John Zettlemoyer -
Mark Jeremy -
Warren Bailey -
Yang Yu