So the main issue was not of PN's doing but a bit of cable that was never envisaged to carry the data that you want it to.

If gaming is SO important then pay for a leased line with an SLA when issues strike.

damn I thought I was dyslexic.


I pay for my line to PN.

No the line problem cutting out and having peak time latency problems just took ages (years) to fix. Lag to servers in EU due to a bad link from one of PN's ISP's hasn't yet been fixed.

Please read my post rather than post irrelevant posts. "fountain of knowledge"!?!

Edited by deleted (Thu 16-Jan-14 11:36:00)

The peering problem (if it is that rather than a game design problem) is something that needs to be raised with the gaming companies. It is as much a problem for BT Infinity users as it is for PlusNet users.

A lot of gaming forums are littered with people having high ping/lag issues when gaming.

Level3 does seem to be a common link in the UK, but I do not know how this is fixed. I would imagine the gaming companies have to talk to them maybe or pay for some kind of service level?

After reading the problems/conflicts the big IPS's have with each other which is a problem all of its own. I think the game developers are being very ignorant to use this type of netcode.


Who's going to take responsibility for this? The p2p netcode is a great idea but not with the problems we are having with peering links between these big ISP's.

Guaranteed latency and packet loss between a home in the UK and a random link elsewhere in Europe or the USA is why leased lines exist and paying enough that people get a dedicated person to ensure their routing to peers is as good as it can be, i.e. think banker spending a fortune to be able to trade a ms or two faster than other people.

This is well beyond the realm of someone paying £20 per month to a consumer level ISP.

Peering can cost handsome amounts of money and while direct peering can be cheap, if you are heading to other countries then you build a complex pyramid.

Issue is that P2P gaming code will work nicely in a campus environment, but take it to the real world in any country and the difference can be significant. Hence why some firms still go the more expensive route of hosted servers that can at least be controlled more.

why leased lines exist and paying enough that people get a dedicated person to ensure their routing to peers is as good as it can be

Are PN's suppliers unable to provide this to PN? because PN already prioritizes gaming traffic and should already have this affect?

Edited by deleted (Thu 16-Jan-14 14:53:56)

Any prioritisation by PlusNet will end at the edge of their network.

The phrase supplier does not really apply to peering, as PlusNet do not buy capacity that links to every datacentre in the world, but has peering agreements and it is those that may have highly variable levels of contention and latency.

If you want guaranteed latency and throughput to Amsterdam for example then you are well past the consumer realm and into the corporate world of peering agreements and all the associated costs.

I couldn't agree more. So the responsibility lies with PN.

Its up to them to offer a router for traffic such as p2p gaming.

One gamer per leased line is residuals, you could get 30+ people playing online games at once on a leased line. Isn't that the hole point in a ISP to distribute such big amount of bandwidth for something so expensive.

I personally think PN shouldn't offer a service for playing games especially when it comes to consoles as that where the p2p game code comes from.

Edited by deleted (Thu 16-Jan-14 15:31:45)

You haven't actually understood a word MrSaffron has said!

Edited by jelv (Thu 16-Jan-14 16:51:12)

No. He is saying if you want a dedicated line to your game server, with perfect peering, it is going to cost you thousands a year. From what you say about other people, you aren't the only one (on other ISPs) with the same problem to the particular server you use? That sounds like the server's fault to me.