don't really need to know where its goin'... needless to say, its a very premium provider (not mine, not who i'm gonna work with)... but that traceroute... its quite messed up... ping times good, route = messed... whats worse about it is that its actually pretty common to see crap like this lately... i thought chapter 11 wasn't affecting their network...?
-----------------------------------------
Tracing the route to *****.******.*** (***.**.***.**)
1 interconnect-eng.Seattle1.Level3.net (209.0.227.154) 0 msec
POS2-1.BR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (209.0.227.150) 0 msec
interconnect-eng.Seattle1.Level3.net (209.0.227.154) 0 msec
2 0.so-7-3-0.XL2.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.78) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 4 msec
0.so-7-3-0.XL1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.74) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 0 msec
0.so-7-3-0.XL2.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.78) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 0 msec
3 0.so-7-0-0.TL1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.2.130) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 0 msec
0.so-7-0-0.TL2.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.2.134) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 4 msec
0.so-7-0-0.TL1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.2.130) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 0 msec
4 0.so-5-0-0.TL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.110) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
0.so-1-2-0.TL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.77) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 76 msec
0.so-5-0-0.TL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.110) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 76 msec
5 0.so-7-0-0.XL1.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.21) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
152.63.123.214 [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
0.so-7-0-0.XL1.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.21) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
6 0.so-7-0-0.XR4.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.18.30) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
0.so-7-0-0.XR3.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.17.30) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
0.so-7-0-0.XR4.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.18.30) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
7 189.ATM7-0.GW7.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.25.113) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
188.ATM6-0.GW7.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.25.117) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
189.ATM7-0.GW7.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.25.113) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec
8 internap-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.50.86) [AS 701 {ALTERNET}] 80 msec 80 msec 80 msec
9 border27.ge4-1-bbnet2.nyc.pnap.net (209.191.128.160) [AS 10910 {INTERNAP-BLK}] 80 msec 80 msec 80 msec
...

err i have been using worldcom bandwidth for months now, no probs here :)

Excellent and quality bandwidth.

well... they're obviously excellent... but i don't get why these premium networks are having these 'wierd issues'... note: even with all that extra stuff in those traceroutes, the latency does not get to an unacceptable level... actually... still maintains an excellent level... heh

80ms from seattle to nyc is quite excellent... heh

What exactly is your point here? Do you think the number of hops is too high? That's common to UUNet because they seem to have configured most of their routers to be shown on a traceroute. Most other carriers just hide most of their routers in traceroutes but they're still there.
Also, many hops has no affect on anything at all, so that's just a virtual problem you've made up :)

netdude,


are you the only man in the world paid to run tracert all the day ?

The numbers looks okay to me. But he sure like to complain. lol:)

Cool more netdude-triggered Cogent related bashing :yawn:

other then being over 7 billion in debt, theyre fine heh

Hehe that's nothing :) The German Telecom (Deutsche Telekom) is over $60 billion in debt :D

Originally posted by Gernot
. Most other carriers just hide most of their routers in traceroutes but they're still there.
Also, many hops has no affect on anything at all, so that's just a virtual problem you've made up :)

I never knew something like that !

Then why don't cogent and other such carriers hide some routers to make tracert look shorter to keep yelling monkeys away !

also doesn't it effect the network performance or tracing of dos attacks or something like that !

I don't see anything wrong with that traceroute. Don't get me wrong, I hate worldcom, but that traceroute is a very good one.

The ping times are low, it's showing multiple paths at several points (that's a good thing), and there doesn't appear to be any variability in the ping times.

When it shows more than one responding IP per hop, that means they are doing per-destination (probably not per-packet) load balancing across more than one line. This is good for reliability and performance.

Question:

Is this your first time running a traceroute from a router or other device intelligent enough (Windows isn't) to show the multiple paths that your data actually takes?

BTW, I only count 9 hops. That's a fairly normal length for a traceroute.

Looks fine to me too :look: