You have made enough money to move the NA/EU servers

[Raist]

So you continue to not understand that SE has their own Provider(s) that is directly connected to Level 3. You still fail to understand that SE also has that responsibility through the Provider they use.

Level3 is not the ONLY peering/transit provider available. Ormuco (SE's ISP) actually has a very robust peering agreement with not only the PSInet affiliate of Cogent, but also TATA.

(http://bgp.he.net/AS20324)

Here's the breakdown of those ASN's:
AS6453 TATA COMMUNICATIONS (AMERICA) INC
AS3356 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
AS3257 Tinet SpA
AS174 Cogent Communications

Perhaps if you were following these issues more closely, you would know more about these other peers available for them. Level3, TATA, and Cogent are continually brought up over and over in nearly all these ongoing threads. And it has been shown time and time again that there are big issues at the exchange points to these third-party networks. Here's the path I take, and atm there are no Level3 hops, and everytime TWC switches me to them I quickly get taken off of them:

  0  G75VXLAP [10.10.100.10]
  1  LPTSRV [10.10.100.1]
  2  cpe-075-176-160-001.sc.res.rr.com [75.176.160.1]
  3  cpe-024-031-198-009.sc.res.rr.com [24.31.198.9]
  4  24.31.196.212
  5  be33.chrcnctr01r.southeast.rr.com [24.93.64.182]
  6  bu-ether14.atlngamq46w-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.82]
  7  107.14.19.99
  8  te0-0-0-10.ccr21.atl02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.12.109]
  9  be2050.ccr41.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.0.165]
 10  be2168.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.31.94]
 11  be2148.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.31.118]
 12  be2106.ccr21.alb02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.3.50]
 13  be2088.ccr21.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.43.17]
 14  38.122.42.34
 15  192.34.76.10
 16  199.91.189.242
 17  199.91.189.30

And no... so long as TWC is staying on top of my route like they have been since I started working with them months ago on the issues, I don't have all the lag and disconnects everyone else experiences. And I'm coming from South Carolina.

[ReplicaX]

Perhaps if you were following these issues more closely.

I'm aware of this and my Provider does this for me now. I had the level 3 issues in Feb like many others. Here is my current hops outside of my network for proof:

xe-9-0-0.mtl10.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.105.162]
ormuco-gw.ip4.gtt.net [216.221.156.110]
[192.34.76.2]
[199.91.189.234]
[199.91.189.38] Avg: 24ms Min: 23ms  Max: 25ms Cur: 24

I'm not familiar with Global Telecom & Technology however they have been good since my provider rerouted me through them. 20 to 40ms at destination with little to fluxuations besides the recent DDoS attacks to the servers.

In February all my issues were from the level 3 to Ormuco peer exchange. Why I used a VPN in Quebec City until my ISP changed my routing.

My question to you is simple though. Regardless of Ormuco's agreements do you not feel Ormuco has responsibility with that peer exchange between them and Level 3 and working with them to resolve it?

My point was rather simple. It's not one Company or ISP to blame, its those connected to them as well. My Provider and SE's Provider are responsible to resolve these issues with Level 3. After months my Provider got no where with them and used alternate routing in Montreal as a solution via another Company.

Edit:

AS3257 Tinet SpA

Seems they were bought out by Global Telecom & Technology last year.

[Raist]

I'm aware of this and my Provider does this for me now. I had the level 3 issues in Feb like many others. Here is my current hops outside of my network for proof:

xe-9-0-0.mtl10.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.105.162]
ormuco-gw.ip4.gtt.net [216.221.156.110]
[192.34.76.2]
[199.91.189.234]
[199.91.189.38] Avg: 24ms Min: 23ms  Max: 25ms Cur: 24

I'm not familiar with Global Telecom & Technology however they have been good since my provider rerouted me through them. 20 to 40ms at destination with little to fluxuations besides the recent DDoS attacks to the servers.

In February all my issues were from the level 3 to Ormuco peer exchange. Why I used a VPN in Quebec City until my ISP changed my routing.

My question to you is simple though. Regardless of Ormuco's agreements do you not feel Ormuco has responsibility with that peer exchange between them and Level 3 and working with them to resolve it?

My point was rather simple. It's not one Company or ISP to blame, its those connected to them as well. My Provider and SE's Provider are responsible to resolve these issues with Level 3. After months my Provider got no where with them and used alternate routing in Montreal as a solution via another Company.

You were making the case that it is only level3 in play, which clearly is not the case and needed to be corrected.

As for Ormuco working with Level3, if it is found to be an issue with their peering agreement, then yes... they may need to revisit that agreement. However, in the majority of the cases I've seen in play there are actually tell-tale signs of congestion causing problems before it gets to the Ormuco handoff. The one time we spotted anything on their end (we being a TWC T3 tech and myself while looking at my route), it looked like an issue with their VLAN that was spiking +200 over the norm and we messaged their admin about it. It was fixed a couple days later. Otherwise, both when looking at mine and other people's routes we've been more consistently seeing too much jitter prior to exiting Level3, Cogent, or TATA on the Ormuco side.

GTT was bought up along with another groups lines if I remember right. Seem to recall seeing that a while back. Someone originally based out of Europe I think...some weird passing around where it was absorbed into another company, then that company was sold to them or some odd thing. The lines are currently owned by Tinet (German company? Their WhoIs is a mess), who peers with Ormuco directly.

ATM we are wrestling with our more local nodes here in the Carolinas. They were running me on Hilton Head's gateway for a while, then they switched me to Conway. It's a bit better then the mess that was starting at Hilton Head, but it's still not good... about 1/20 times we see a spike break 100ms within my first few hops while still in TWC territory. When it gets more frequent, I start to see the jitter on screen--but it's still not enough for rubberbanding or any timeouts.... yet. Just wish they would finally get Florence's head-end straightened out so I don't have to ping-pong all over the place like we're doing right now.

[ReplicaX]

ATM we are wrestling with our more local nodes here in the Carolinas. They were running me on Hilton Head's gateway for a while, then they switched me to Conway. It's a bit better then the mess that was starting at Hilton Head, but it's still not good... about 1/20 times we see a spike break 100ms within my first few hops while still in TWC territory. When it gets more frequent, I start to see the jitter on screen--but it's still not enough for rubberbanding or any timeouts.... yet. Just wish they would finally get Florence's head-end straightened out so I don't have to ping-pong all over the place like we're doing right now.

Verizon had the same issue with alternet nodes when they first took over in 2008 here. My local node just got an overhaul, new generators, and climate control besides newer GPON upgrades. They have been doing it statewide this year. No idea what they are running from there to the CO though.

You mean everyone but the United States cause god forbid that the ISPs stop overcharging customers and only offer fast internet to people outside of cities.

I get 100/100 and I'm more rural for my area. Verizon even ran 850ft of Fiber to my house and ditchwitched it. Comcast wanted $5k to run RG6. Think that was a no brainer.

I would love to have 1G $30/month like some other Countries.