...
Islamabad Intra-regional POP to POP | Lahore Intra regional POP to POP | Karachi Intra regional POP to POP |
|---|---|---|
| | |
POP to NON POP Analysis
An aerial view of Average RTT of Pakistan shows that the RTTs for Peshawar region are high as compared to other regions. Multan and Faisalabad POP nodes also show high RTT. Figure 3 shows the average RTTs from SEECS to other nodes in Pakistan with colors of line showing the average RTT for that link.
Figure 3: SEECS to Pakistan Average RTT
Mean Opinion Score (MOS ) is used as the measurement for VoIP. It is a good measure to know which links are good and which ones are bad. Within Pakistan MOS value for all of the links is above 4.1 (which is excellent for VOIP communication). In figure 4 it is seen that MOS (red markers) were not affected much by addition of new nodes (green line shows node pairs). MOS shows that, Pakistan to Pakistan VOIP communication should not be a problem.
Figure 4: Pakistan to Pakistan MOS with Node Pairs
...
Islamabad to others | Lahore to others | Karachi to others | Peshawar to others | Quetta to others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
Outliers
Some critical observations that led to finding the outliers are:
- Min RTT from Lahore POP to Islamabad non-POP nodes is low on alternative months.
- Multan to Peshawar RTT is lesser than all other regions. Again UETTAXILA has low min RTT which is even lesser than the Peshawar region.
- PWR POP to SAU min RTT reduced from 41.5 ms in July to 31ms in Nov. Again UETTAXILA has low min rtt of 5.9 ms
- Jamshoro POP to ISL min rtt reduced from 35-40 ms till august to 25-28 ms from Sept onwards. Same goes to Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta. UETTaxila min rtt is same as for other ISL nodes
...
i. ISL POP To Jamshoro POP
...
Looking at traceroutes from ISl HQ to Jamshoro POP a change in routes is observed.
| Code Block |
|---|
Traceroute on 25th September:
Executing exec(traceroute, -m 30 -q 3 -f 3, 121.52.154.2, 140)
traceroute to 121.52.154.2 (121.52.154.2), 30 hops max, 140 byte packets
4 172.31.250.57 (172.31.250.57) 28.641 ms 28.594 ms 30.510 ms
5 khi77.pie.net.pk (202.125.134.241) 28.016 ms 28.001 ms 28.431 ms
6 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.21) 30.436 ms 30.423 ms rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.169) 28.412 ms
7 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.58) 31.367 ms 30.371 ms 31.333 ms
8 khi77.pie.net.pk (221.120.205.70) 31.358 ms 32.286 ms 32.300 ms
9 (121.52.154.2) 35.265 ms 40.389 ms 37.921 ms
|
| Code Block |
|---|
Traceroute on 25th October:
Executing exec(traceroute, -m 30 -q 3 -f 3, 121.52.154.2, 140)
traceroute to 121.52.154.2 (121.52.154.2), 30 hops max, 140 byte packets
4 172.31.250.57 (172.31.250.57) 25.531 ms 26.403 ms 26.387 ms
5 tw129-static237.tw1.com (119.63.129.237) 29.595 ms 29.742 ms 30.830 ms
6 tw128-static161.tw1.com (119.63.128.161) 23.843 ms 24.579 ms 24.558 ms
7 tw255-static10.tw1.com (110.93.255.10) 27.672 ms 27.656 ms 27.639 ms
8 (212.73.253.73) 180.369 ms 180.354 ms 180.338 ms
9 ae-5-6.bar2.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.151.13) 212.307 ms ae-4-5.bar1.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.151.9) 225.650 ms 224.911 ms
10 ae-3-4.edge2.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.143.254) 178.239 ms 182.843 ms 185.761 ms
11 213.242.115.2 (213.242.115.2) 136.229 ms 136.184 ms 136.166 ms
12 static-10GE-KHI494-P01-KHI494-SWB.pie.net.pk (202.125.128.157) 137.212 ms 137.221 ms 137.202 ms
13 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.58) 137.812 ms 138.460 ms 138.445 ms
14 khi77.pie.net.pk (221.120.205.70) 139.410 ms 140.131 ms 140.116 ms
15 pinger.hyd.usindh.edu.pk (121.52.154.2) 138.823 ms 138.808 ms 138.793 ms
The highlighted lines show the changed hops.
|
...
Karachi HQ POP to USINDH
...
KHI POP to Non-POP performance was consistent for all of the nodes except for SBKWU and USINDH. Looking at traceroutes, it is seen that in November the packets follow the route which takes a long time. However, in August the routes were different resulting in lower min RTT.
| Code Block |
|---|
On 3rd November is:
Executing exec(traceroute, -m 30 -q 3 -f 3, 121.52.154.50, 140)
traceroute to 121.52.154.50 (121.52.154.50), 30 hops max, 140 byte packets
4 tw112-static205.tw1.com (221.132.112.205) 1.769 ms 2.054 ms 2.286 ms
5 tw255-static6.tw1.com (110.93.255.6) 2.351 ms 2.501 ms 3.032 ms
6 (212.73.253.73) 112.097 ms 112.324 ms 112.386 ms
7 ae-5-6.bar2.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.151.13) 112.544 ms ae-4-5.bar1.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.151.9) 113.523 ms ae-5-6.bar2.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.151.13) 112.764 ms
8 ae-3-4.edge2.Marseille1.Level3.net (4.69.143.254) 113.340 ms 113.081 ms 113.390 ms
Trace
|
| Code Block |
|---|
route on 8th August was:
Executing exec(traceroute, -m 30 -q 3 -f 3, 121.52.155.62, 140)
traceroute to 121.52.155.62 (121.52.155.62), 30 hops max, 140 byte packets
4 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.169) 1.036 ms rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.21) 1.881 ms 2.111 ms
5 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.58) 14.123 ms 14.340 ms 14.583 ms
6 khi77.pie.net.pk (221.120.205.70) 15.330 ms 15.565 ms 15.797 ms
7 172.31.253.66 (172.31.253.66) 16.159 ms 16.393 ms 16.456 ms
8 usindh.edu.pk (121.52.156.130) 16.957 ms 17.190 ms 17.254 ms
9 (121.52.155.62) 17.667 ms !X 15.497 ms !X 15.596 ms !X
|
...
FJWU POP to QAU POP and FSBD POP
...
The average RTT from FJWU to Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad (Islamabad-QAU) is very small (with an average of 0.91ms) compared to FJWU to other POPs. The reason being the number of hops traversed for this particular path is less compared to other remote nodes, which also reduces the round-trip delay. The hops traversed by the trace-route from FJWU to Islamabad-QAU is compared with the trace-route for FJWU to Faisalabad POP
...
FJWU to QAU on 16th November
...
| Code Block |
|---|
Executing exec(traceroute, -m 30 -q 3 -f 3, 111.68.96.150, 140) traceroute to 111.68.96.150 (111.68.96.150), 30 hops max, 140 byte packets 4 111.68.96.150.pern.pk (111.68.96.150) 0.944 ms 0.920 ms 0.909 ms |
...
FJWU to FSBD on 16th November
...
| Code Block |
|---|
Executing exec(traceroute, -m 30 -q 3 -f 3, 121.52.153.242, 140) traceroute to 121.52.153.242 (121.52.153.242), 30 hops max, 140 byte packets 4 khi77.pie.net.pk (202.125.134.241) 26.507 ms 26.492 ms 26.482 ms 5 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.169) 26.565 ms rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.21) 26.617 ms rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.251.169) 26.540 ms 6 rwp44.pie.net.pk (221.120.254.41) 46.577 ms 46.574 ms 46.563 ms 7 static.lhr63.pie.net.pk (221.120.208.38) 48.778 ms 48.769 ms 48.804 ms 8 lhr63.pie.net.pk (202.125.147.50) 49.063 ms 49.310 ms 49.381 ms 9 121.52.153.242.pern.pk (121.52.153.242) 47.842 ms 47.181 ms 47.061 ms |