Recent High Ping With Online Video Games

[Cherryace]

Recently I have been getting high ping playing online games such as league of legends. This occurs spefically between around 5pm-12am.  During this time my ping goes to 120 when it is usually around 70-80. I've tried closing all other applications as well as removing any other device connected to the internet but I still have this problem. Does anyone know what could be going on? 

[mdk]

@Cherryace -- much of the response-time depends on your location (Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, versus other smaller locations) and on where the game-server is (San Francisco or Chicago) as to the Internet "path" that your traffic travels. So, physically, where are you, and which server are you using? Game-servers in California are routed through Vancouver and Seattle, and onwards. Game-servers in Chicagoland are routed through Winnipeg.

[LevonJay]

Hey I've been experiencing these issues for literally years now. They will never be fixed and I'm just waiting for my 2 year contract to be finished to switch ISPs. Contacting Shaw support will not help and neither will this discussion board. You can view my detailed explanation here: https://support.shaw.ca/t5/internet-discussions/league-of-legends-ping/td-p/22002 

What I found is that paid gaming VPN / routing services will fix the issue with Shaws terrible routing. I've had success with ExitLag, Haste, and Mudfish. (Mudfish being the cheapest) but note that even some gaming VPNs still route incorrectly. For example, Mudfish has multiple Chicago nodes that you can choose from and Shaws routing is only correct for half of them even though they are all in Chicago.

[rstra]

@LevonJay Users here may respond, but, as you know, it is routing, nobody on here or the front line reps can do anything about it either. The Shaw agents may suggest sending a service technician, but that is a waste of everyone’s time. I am having to stop using email and move to gmail because the Shaw servers are doing a terrible job managing spam mail, and there is nobody at Shaw that is able to address the problem. Frustrating.

[mdk]

@LevonJay --  Mudfish has multiple Chicago nodes that you can choose from and Shaw's routing is only correct for half of them 

Unfortunately for you, Shaw has no control over the routing within the USA to Mudfish. So, there is no "correct" routing.

Mudfish publishes its "routing tables", and sends that information to their "upstream" provider, and to their own upstream provider, and so on.

The routing-tables also contain "priority" information.  For example, you can take the slower backroads from Saskatoon to Regina, or provincial highway #11. It's your choice which route to take.

Shaw's routers use the propagated tables to determine the "best" path to route your packets to one of the major "packet interchange" locations, as the packets "leave" Shaw's own network, and cross-over into the USA (leaving Vancouver or Calgary or Winnipeg) to go south into the USA.

Shaw's own routing tables determine which of those dross-over points is the "best" route -- fastest link, and/or least amount of current traffic, and which of those cross-border connections is "up" and which is "down".

Having multiple cross-over routes allows Shaw to continue to provide connectivity to the USA when one of the connections is "down". So, "best route" can change, from minute-to-minute.

Note that some of the VPN servers are on "side-roads" on the Internet, making them slower. For example, if a VPN server was located in Okotoks, your packets would probably go into Calgary, out to the server in Okotoks, and then back to Calgary, on their way to Mudfish.  That adds extra "hops", causing extra delay, and those hops are probably not on the "backbone". Ergo, slower than not using that VPN-server.

[LevonJay]

That would be a good point if the only difference wasn't actually the routing between Shaw nodes which makes you categorically and unequivocally incorrect like you always are in every single discussion regarding Shaw routing.

As I've previously and exhaustively illustrated, as has the numerous discussions regarding Shaws terrible routing, this is entirely happening with Shaw exclusively across multiple games and platforms and occurring within Shaws nodes.

Shaw is brutally bad for routing and there are countless issues. Stop responding to these discussions as you are an unhelpful Shaw apologist and add nothing to resolve the issues because you are in complete denial.

[mdk]

Grasshopper @LevonJay -- you are in complete denial, and do not show a good knowledge of Internet routing.

Show some output from the Windows command-line TRACERT command between your computer and both of the Mudfish game-servers.  Facts, please, not just arm-waving, unfounded speculation, and rants.

[LevonJay]

Here you go Grandmaster Dog

Shaws terrible infrastructure resulting in the ping spikes aside:

League of Legends Chicago Server (Edmonton to Calgary to Washington then connect to Riot games network from Seattle to Chicago)

Mudfish GCore Chicago Node (Edmonton to Winnipeg to Illinois then to GCore Network)

Mudfish VIG28 Chicago Node (Edmonton to Calgary to Washington then hitting the VIG network)

Mudfish to VULTR Chicago Node (Edmonton to Illinois then to VULTR network)

So half the routing goes to the West coast and then crosses the country and the other half goes the correct (in this context: quickest) way.

[mdk]

@LevonJay -- thanks for those reports. They show that Shaw can deliver packets into the USA quite quickly: 30 or 40 or 31 or  46 milliseconds to one hop "beyond" the Shaw network. Then, the routing is dependent on the routing information supplied by each game-server's management on the various routes to reach their network.

On your computer, are the PING times congruent with the output from TRACERT?

[LevonJay]

Shaw's internal routing is incorrect as clearly illustrated. Not sure why you are being so willfully ignorant but okay just keep ruining more discussions on this board. I wouldn't be surprised if you are personally responsible for thousands of dollars in direct losses for Shaw from people trying to get help here and only to have you respond.