24 Sep

Tata Communications (AS4755) pushing traffic to Reliance Jio (AS55836) via Singapore!

Bad route

So it seems like apart from voice interconnect issues, Jio is also facing routing issues on the backbone. I ran a trace to one of IP’s on Jio network allocated to end customer – 169.149.212.122.

I ran trace from all Indian RIPE Atlas probes – https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/5738489/#!probes

There seem quite a few RIPE Atlas probes which are giving latency on 150ms + range. Seems like they are downstream or downstream of downstream of Tata Comm’s AS4755 and routing is happening via Singapore!

 

 

Two of such traces

jio1 screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-11-26-05-pm

 

This isn’t how regular routing should work since even if both do not announce routes to each other, Jio’s routes are visible at NIXI. E.g NIXI Noida shows 169.149.192.0/18 visible which covers that test IP. Tata AS4755 is probably rejecting that IP.

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-11-31-45-pm

 

And if we look at Tata AS6453 routing table for their Chennai PoP, it shows AS_PATH as AS3431 (PCCW Global) who happens to be upstream of Jio’s International network AS64049.

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-11-31-38-pm

 

Clearly, that’s just bad routing!

 

It might be the case Tata is doing intentionally without any evil plans because NIXI might just not have sufficient capacity. Overall ISPs should peer with PNI’s as well as we need IX’es other than just NIXI to promote more peering and promote better interconnect.

 

Disclaimer: This post and expressed comments are in my personal capacity and my employer has no relation with it. 

3 thoughts on “Tata Communications (AS4755) pushing traffic to Reliance Jio (AS55836) via Singapore!

  1. Please take a look at this route,i think its going wrong. Ping from Rewari Haryana To Cogent Tokyo (AS174) 393.766ms To Cogent Sanjose (AS174) 283.00 ms Traceroute from Rewari,India To Tokyo(AS174) traceroute to 103.47.170.65 (103.47.170.65), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gi0-0-0-18.223.ccr11.tyo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.250.185) 1.323 ms 1.330 ms 2 te0-4-0-34.ccr21.sea02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.24.45.97) 88.744 ms 88.753 ms 3 be2084.ccr22.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.253) 88.783 ms be2083.ccr21.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.249) 89.016 ms 4 be2075.ccr21.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.233) 107.610 ms be2077.ccr22.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.241) 107.625 ms 5 be2165.ccr22.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.66) 108.884 ms 108.894 ms 6 be2047.ccr21.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.114) 109.897 ms 112.427 ms 7 tata.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.12.142) 109.258 ms 109.199 ms 8 if-ae-1-2.tcore2.SQN-San-Jose.as6453.net (63.243.205.2) 119.706 ms 119.721 ms 9 if-ae-5-2.tcore2.PDI-Palo-Alto.as6453.net (64.86.21.2) 119.656 ms 119.618 ms 10 if-ae-2-2.tcore1.PDI-Palo-Alto.as6453.net (66.198.127.1) 119.558 ms 119.513 ms 11 if-ae-3-2.tcore1.LVW-Los-Angeles.as6453.net (66.198.127.26) 121.894 ms 119.735 ms 12 66.110.59.126 (66.110.59.126) 356.533 ms 364.751 ms 13 * * 14 14.141.116.70.static-Delhi.vsnl.net.in (14.141.116.70) 379.473 ms 388.719 ms 15 203.122.48.74.reverse.spectranet.in (203.122.48.74) 385.585 ms 395.394 ms 16 * * 17 * * 18 103.47.170.65 (103.47.170.65) 391.942 ms 398.346 ms I think it should goes to India-Singapore-Tokyo(144 ms) But it goes to India-LA-SJ-Tokyo(393 ms) TATA Comm(AS6453) Tracert Router: gin-tv2-core1 Site: JP, Tokyo, TV2 Command: traceroute ip 103.47.170.65 Tracing the route to 103.47.170.65 1 if-xe-0-1-1-1715.tcore2.TV2-Tokyo.as6453.net (209.58.61.126) [MPLS: Label 559305 Exp 0] 80 msec if-xe-0-0-2-1720.tcore2.TV2-Tokyo.as6453.net (209.58.61.122) [MPLS: Label 559305 Exp 0] 84 msec if-xe-0-1-1-1715.tcore2.TV2-Tokyo.as6453.net (209.58.61.126) [MPLS: Label 559305 Exp 0] 64 msec 2 if-ae-6-2.tcore1.SVW-Singapore.as6453.net (180.87.12.109) [MPLS: Label 354672 Exp 0] 84 msec 80 msec 84 msec 3 * if-ae-2-2.tcore2.SVW-Singapore.as6453.net (180.87.12.2) 140 msec * 4 180.87.15.202 152 msec 152 msec 152 msec 5 172.17.125.238 160 msec 160 msec 160 msec 6 14.141.116.70.static-Delhi.vsnl.net.in (14.141.116.70) [AS 4755] 164 msec 164 msec 160 msec 7 203.122.48.74.reverse.spectranet.in (203.122.48.74) [AS 10029] 184 msec 180 msec 184 msec 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 103.47.170.65 [AS 133275] 168 msec 168 msec 172 msec
    • Hi Hariom Yes, you are right. Routing seems inefficient in this case. AS174 is handing off packets to AS6453 in SJC (San Jose, California) instead of doing that within Asia. I am not sure if they both peer at all in Asia. If not then result is expected while if they do then it's likely a case of bad route filtering. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.