FIFA 10 problems - Trace Route

On fifa 10 (PS3), I can hardly play any games online because 9 times of out 10, I get an error saying "this game session is longer available".

I contacted EA about the constant "game session is no longer available" error and they came back to me and told me to perform a trace route. So I did that and here are the results:

UOTrace 1

UOTrace 2

After sending these to EA, they said that "it seems as if there is an issue in your online connection before reaching our servers." They said that I have to contact my ISP before they can resolve this any further.

Could someone who understands these UOTraces, look at these and confirm whether this is the case or if my line is fine (because other games work fine on the same connection).

Thanks in advance

Those trace routes look fine for a server in US and the routes taken seem reasonable. They are slightly quicker, 91 ms, than mine, 117 ms, on Orange, which is not particularly fast for pings/latency.

I'd say there is no evidence of anything wrong with your line from these.

What's your trace route to a normal UK site, like bbc.co.uk, like?

Hi, I've just swapped out my o2 router for a Netgear, because I get that exact same issue. I can confirm, this IS NOT a problem with the ISP, but more likely the port forwarding at the router.
Maybe you could try another router to rule it out?

Alan

I had this problem on my old router when I updated the firmware. Reverting back to an older firmware resolved it. I would start by looking at your router, UPNP and/or NAT settings.

Have you opened up the ports detailed in the Fifa 10 manual to the PS3's local IP?

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Those trace routes look fine for a server in US and the routes taken seem reasonable. They are slightly quicker, 91 ms, than mine, 117 ms, on Orange, which is not particularly fast for pings/latency.

I'd say there is no evidence of anything wrong with your line from these.

What's your trace route to a normal UK site, like bbc.co.uk, like?

Here is a trace route to the BBC website:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lhum50qyg2o/UO Trace BBC.txt

I have already forwarded the ports listed in the manual according to the instructions at this website: http://www.o2help.co.uk/router-port-forwarding/

No problem there! Looks good; over twice as fast as mine in about half the hops

EA have told me that it hops 2 and 3 that are the problem.

On the trace route they are "unknown host" and have a % loss of 100%. What are these unknown hosts?

UOTrace 1

Those hops are within your ISP's network and are quite normal; they just don't have "reverse DNS" names. Here's my tracert with similar :

Tracing route to meav5-pub.pt.iad.ea.com [159.153.226.105]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms SiemensRouter [192.168.1.1]
2 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms 87.237.21.182
3 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms 87.237.20.21
4 41 ms 41 ms 42 ms 87.237.20.23
5 164 ms 228 ms 148 ms ae1-0.loncr4.London.opentransit.net [193.251.254.33]
6 42 ms 42 ms 42 ms tengige0-7-0-0.lontr1.London.opentransit.net [193.251.243.41]
7 62 ms 49 ms 49 ms xe-8-0-0.edge3.London1.level3.net [4.68.111.65]
8 51 ms 49 ms 49 ms ae-34-52.ebr2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.97]
9 112 ms 112 ms 112 ms ae-42-42.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.137.70]
10 117 ms 125 ms 126 ms ae-3-3.ebr4.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.132.93]
11 123 ms 125 ms 126 ms ae-84-84.csw3.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.186]
12 122 ms 122 ms 139 ms ae-33-89.car3.Washington1.Level3.net [4.68.17.133]
13 117 ms 116 ms 116 ms ELECTRONIC.car3.Washington1.Level3.net [4.79.169.74]
14 121 ms 122 ms 121 ms fert07-eqx-iad.ea.com [159.153.224.230]
15 117 ms 121 ms 118 ms meav5-pub.pt.iad.ea.com [159.153.226.105]

Trace complete.

I I don't think the 100% losses are significant. Some servers are set up not to respond to PINGs but still able to route onwards to your final desination.

* Unknown Host * 10.132.0.1 2 18ms 100% 0 / 100
* Unknown Host * 10.1.2.177 3 18ms 100% 0 / 100

If my memory is working this morning these are reserved IPs and used as router access IPs.

Exactly what is your set-up.

Master Socket > router > to what?

What router are you using?
Are you using Homeplugs?
How is the Computer connected to the router? wired wireless homeplugs

Sorry for all the questions

In reply to a post by Hatari:

* Unknown Host * 10.132.0.1 2 18ms 100% 0 / 100
* Unknown Host * 10.1.2.177 3 18ms 100% 0 / 100

If my memory is working this morning these are reserved IPs and used as router access IPs.

Exactly what is your set-up.

Master Socket > router > to what?

What router are you using?
Are you using Homeplugs?
How is the Computer connected to the router? wired wireless homeplugs

Sorry for all the questions

What are reserved/router access IP's? (sorry if it's a stupid question)

Set up: Master socket > router > PS3 / PC / Laptop all connect wirelesly to the router

Router is a O2 wireless box II.
Not using homeplugs.
Desktop and my laptop both connect wirelessly.

Try connecting the PC wired and do the trace route.

Can I ask why you think that would make any difference at all?!

Can I ask what are reserved/router access IP's?

I think he means that the 10.0.0.0/8 addresses are reserved for private networks (similar to 192.168.0.0/16 that we see in home networks) - which is true however there is no reason why this would cause the problem the OP is seeing.

Nothing to do with routers then.

As far as I can see there's nothing at all in the traceroute which shows a problem.

Agreed.

There are groups of IPs that are reserved for private use frequently as equipment IPs and private LAN IPs.

i.e. 192.168.0.0 - 255.255, 10.0.0.0 - 255.255.255 & 172.16.0.0 - 31.255.255 see RFC 1918 & RFC 3330.

Hope that helps

I think the posible problem here is the way the wifi is handling the connection and possibly due to local interference is causing an 18ms delay between the PC and the router. Just my thoughts.

I think the OP needs to try a wired connection.

In reply to a post by Hatari:

There are groups of IPs that are reserved for private use frequently as equipment IPs and private LAN IPs.

i.e. 192.168.0.0 - 255.255, 10.0.0.0 - 255.255.255 & 172.16.0.0 - 31.255.255 see RFC 1918 & RFC 3330.

Hope that helps

Do you think there's a problem with them appearing in a traceroute?

Lovely, but what is the relevance of this to the OP?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Hatari:

There are groups of IPs that are reserved for private use frequently as equipment IPs and private LAN IPs.

i.e. 192.168.0.0 - 255.255, 10.0.0.0 - 255.255.255 & 172.16.0.0 - 31.255.255 see RFC 1918 & RFC 3330.

Hope that helps

Do you think there's a problem with them appearing in a traceroute?

I would not have expected reserved IPs to appear in a tracert on the public web. As I type I am not sure what router the OP has and what its IP address range is. The only time I would expect reserved IPs to appear is where there is another router between the computer/router and the public net. I think the possible problem here is a wifi one and testing with a wired connection would confirm one way or another.

The connection has to go through the ISP network to reach the "public web"

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The connection has to go through the ISP network to reach the "public web"

So does yours and mine, the IPs used are not reserved Anyone of them can be resolved using whois. The ISP's network is classified as public in the terms we are talking in. See the tracert from here. Don't worry about the latency the ISP has a backhaul problem that should be sorted by mid Jan. I hope.

C: \Hatari>tracert www.bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.197]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 44 ms 45 ms 46 ms 92.24.80.1
3 192 ms 73 ms 56 ms 78.151.234.151
4 44 ms 79 ms 50 ms xe-11-0-0-rt002.bre.as13285.net [78.151.225.37]
5 46 ms 79 ms 47 ms xe-10-3-0-rt001.bre.as13285.net [62.24.240.146]
6 50 ms 49 ms 51 ms 62.24.240.37
7 53 ms 52 ms 52 ms xe-10-2-0-scr001.sov.as13285.net [78.144.1.128]
8 50 ms 49 ms 50 ms host-78-144-0-202.as13285.net [78.144.0.202]
9 50 ms 49 ms 54 ms bbc-pp-sov.as13285.net [78.144.5.1]
10 49 ms 40 ms 49 ms 212.58.238.149
11 50 ms 49 ms 54 ms 212.58.239.62
12 41 ms 44 ms 43 ms www-nonuk-vip.telhc.bbc.co.uk [212.58.251.197]

Trace complete.

In most cases they aren't RFC1918 addresses but in some they are - try this on a 3G network and you'll nearly always get 10.x.y.z addresses.

I ask again - what relevance does this have to the OP?

In reply to a post by JonRennie:

In most cases they aren't RFC1918 addresses but in some they are - try this on a 3G network and you'll nearly always get 10.x.y.z addresses.

I ask again - what relevance does this have to the OP?

The 3G network is a mobile phone wireless network and is private.

If the router has a problem then it is possible for the internal router IPs to show. As I posted a lot earlier I believe this is a wifi problem, test cabled and see.

So you're saying a 3G ISP network is private but a fixed line ISP network isn't? Why?

In reply to a post by JonRennie:

So you're saying a 3G ISP network is private but a fixed line ISP network isn't? Why?

I thought you were a "Very rich and succesful Comms Professional!" so I will assume you know the IANA rules.

As I do not see how this is helping the OP and on my Forum would be classified as ....

I have suggested that the OP needs to do a wired test.

My apologies ss_4

Edited by deleted (Wed 30-Dec-09 21:48:58)

So you can't answer the question then?

The use of RFC1918 addresses in the ISP network, whether it's fixed or wireless, is perfectly acceptable - within the IANA rules and anyone else's.

I agree that this is not helping the OP, I have pointed this out several times but you have pursued the 'private address' scenario which has nothing to do with the OP's problem.

*edit* - spelling

Edited by JonRennie (Wed 30-Dec-09 23:02:02)

In reply to a post by Hatari:

So does yours and mine, the IPs used are not reserved Anyone of them can be resolved using whois.

Nonsense.

In reply to a post by Hatari:

So does yours and mine, the IPs used are not reserved Anyone of them can be resolved using whois.

Nonsense.

* Unknown Host * 10.132.0.1 2 18ms 100% 0 / 100
* Unknown Host * 10.1.2.177 3 18ms 100% 0 / 100

10.132.0.1 - Whois Information

OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID: IANA
Address: 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City: Marina del Rey
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country: US

NetRange: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
CIDR: 10.0.0.0/8
NetName: RESERVED-10
NetHandle: NET-10-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: IANA Special Use
NameServer: BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG
NameServer: BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
Comment: This block is reserved for special purposes.
Comment: Please see RFC 1918 for additional information:
Comment: http://www.arin.net/reference/rfc/rfc1918.txt
RegDate:
Updated: 2007-11-27

Good night

Edited by deleted (Wed 30-Dec-09 22:43:35)

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Comment: Please see RFC 1918 for additional information:
Comment: http://www.arin.net/reference/rfc/rfc1918.txt

So did you read it?

Still irrelevant...I suggest you give up!

I suggest the OP tries testing with a wired Connection.

In reply to a post by Hatari:

I suggest the OP tries testing with a wired Connection.

Let's face it, you're clutching at straws. OTOH worth a try...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Hatari:

I suggest the OP tries testing with a wired Connection.

Let's face it, you're clutching at straws. OTOH worth a try...

No just following a logical testing sequence.

Thanks for all your help so far. I don't mind trying lots of things to try and get to the root of the problem.

Here are 2 trace routes on the EA server, one using a wired connection and one using the wireless. (they were done one after the other so they can be compared)

Wire
Wireless

This proves that it's nothing to do with it being a wired or wireless connection - as expected; I re-interate that there is nothing in the traceroute to indicate any sort of problem with your link.

Can't wait to hear the perceived wisdom on the step that shows as 0.0.0.0 in the wired trace...what will the IANA have to say about that!

Well that did nothing as predicted.

Try a new IP address - http://forum.o2.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2809

Hi are you using a mobile broadband or landline?

Do you have another router you could try ?

He's on O2 Broadband. He may have more luck in the O2 forum.

Ah so you can�t see the difference between the two traces.

Wired

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
O2WirelessBox.lan 192.168.1.254 1 0ms 0ms 0% 101 / 101 0ms / 1ms

Wireless
Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.1.254 1 1ms 5ms 0% 100 / 101 1ms / 232ms
* Unknown Host * 10.132.0.1 2 16ms 100% 0 / 100
* Unknown Host * 10.1.2.177 3 18ms 100% 0 / 100


I would suggest that the OP tries play using a wired connection

Yes there is a difference, most likely down to equal cost routing within the O2 network given the addressing; you'll almost certainly find that consecutive traces using the same connection type will give the same kind of variance.

The O2 network has no conception (nor should it have) of whether the device is connected via a wired connection or not and certainly doesn't route differently as you seem to be implying.

It is worth trying gameplay on the wired connection as this would rule out the wireless as the issue - however the routing is STILL irrelevant to this.

BatBoy's suggestions - try the O2 forum and try to change the WAN IP - sound like good options - but let's get away from your obsession with the routing.

ss_4 you have a PM

In reply to a post by JonRennie:

It is worth trying gameplay on the wired connection as this would rule out the wireless as the issue

Thank you for finally agreeing a wired connection could improve ss_4's problem. I have been saying that since

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Try connecting the PC wired and do the trace route.

Thank you for ignoring all my comments except the one you understood.

It's nothing to do with the trace route.

Happy New Year to you.

Edited by JonRennie (Thu 31-Dec-09 12:15:30)

In reply to a post by JonRennie:

Thank you for ignoring all my comments except the one you understood.

It's nothing to do with the trace route.

Happy New Year to you.

They were irrelevant to the ss_4 so ignored

Happy year to you as well

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Ah so you can�t see the difference between the two traces.

Wired

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
O2WirelessBox.lan 192.168.1.254 1 0ms 0ms 0% 101 / 101 0ms / 1ms

Wireless
Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.1.254 1 1ms 5ms 0% 100 / 101 1ms / 232ms
* Unknown Host * 10.132.0.1 2 16ms 100% 0 / 100
* Unknown Host * 10.1.2.177 3 18ms 100% 0 / 100

Do you think that's the problem?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Ah so you can�t see the difference between the two traces.

Wired

Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
O2WirelessBox.lan 192.168.1.254 1 0ms 0ms 0% 101 / 101 0ms / 1ms

Wireless
Host Name IP Address Hop Ping Time Ping Avg % Loss Pkts r/s Ping best/worst
* Unknown Host * 192.168.1.254 1 1ms 5ms 0% 100 / 101 1ms / 232ms
* Unknown Host * 10.132.0.1 2 16ms 100% 0 / 100
* Unknown Host * 10.1.2.177 3 18ms 100% 0 / 100

Do you think that's the problem?

Do you?

In reply to a post by Hatari:

Do you?

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/technical/t/3769600...