Worldwide. National. Local. Regional. Tier 1 Carrier Performance Report: March

Transcription

1

2 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Disclaimer: The data presented in this report card is intended for information purposes only and is not to be interpreted as any form of promotion or debasement for carriers herein named. Information is obtained from the Intelligent Routing Platform Lite instances, where the compulsory consent of the legal entities for collection of such information is part of the Terms and Conditions document. The data collection method comprises of a Netflow collector looking at destinations an installed network is speaking to and the explorer component then performing periodic probing via ICMP, UDP, and TCP_Syn, checking the performance metrics. The presented data is well sampled, as most of the IRP Lite enhanced networks are typically speaking to around a third of the routing table each day. As Noction continues to intelligently optimize routing for more and more networks around the world, we find ourselves in the unique position of having great insights into the general Internet performance as well as the performance of specific Internet carriers, when analyzing data collected by IRP Lite instances. Current report covers broadly used Tier carriers performance results in the US for the month of March 8. Rare datapoints from distant locations e.g. Alaska or Hawaii have been omitted. The analysis is presented based on the following four levels of aggregation: 95 The analysis is based on more than 95 million successful probes that span the entire month. All data is aggregated per carrier on a daily basis and accounts for many thousands of successful probes. A control group (labeled C) is used as a base for comparison. The control group aggregates the average for all transit providers in a network, including Tier carriers. Page

3 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Average packet loss analysis (%) The charts include a control group C (gray) to allow cross comparison February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric C Page 3

4 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 : CenturyLink kept the leading position in March 8, as in February 8, and is closely followed by Zayo, XO and Level 3; Telia, Cogent and GTT results for the month of March are close to the control group level; A higher level of average loss has been registered for Hurricane Electric; There aren t any large discrepancies in the distribution of average packet loss for the analyzed Tier carriers when comparing March and February data. : Zayo has shown the lowest level of average loss closely followed by Level 3,Telia and NTT; XO, and GTT results are near the control group level; Hurricane Electric has registered the highest average packet loss, followed by Cogent, and CenturyLink; Comparing March data with the registered results in February, we notice that the average packet loss decreased for CenturyLink, Level 3, Telia, Zayo, and the control group level. NTT kept the same level of loss as in the previous month. Cogent, GTT, XO, and Hurricane Electric showed a higher average packet loss. : Zayo showed better results in terms of packet loss in comparison with other carriers at the regional spread; Average packet loss of Zayo is the same with average packet loss of the control group; The highest average packet loss as in the month of February 8 was registered by Hurricane Electric; When comparing March results to the ones from February we notice that the average packet loss for CenturyLink, GTT, Level 3, NTT, and XO has increased. The results for Cogent, Telia and the control group are significantly improved. Zayo has shown the same average packet loss as in February 8. : All carriers registered about the same average packet loss values; Zayo and Cogent have shown better results than the rest of the networks, closely followed by Telia, NTT, Level 3, and CenturyLink; Hurricane Electric showed better results in terms of packet loss in comparison with the February, 8 data. Other carriers didn t show a significant change in their results. : Zayo has the best results in terms of loss in March, 8; Cogent, NTT, Telia, and CenturyLink results are close to the control group level; Hurricane Electric showed the highest level of average packet loss; When comparing March and February data, the following observations can be made: The higher level of average packet loss was registered by CenturyLink, Level 3, NTT, XO, and Hurricane Electric. Cogent, GTT, Telia, and Zayo showed better average packet loss than in the previous month. Page 4

5 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Average latency analysis (ms) The charts include a control group C (gray) to allow cross comparison February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric C Page 5

6 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 : CenturyLink has registered the lowest average latency between the analyzed carriers, followed by Level 3, Hurricane Electric, Zayo, and Telia; NTT, XO, GTT and Cogent results are close to each other slightly exceeding the control group level; Any significant changes in the distribution of average packet latency for the analyzed Tier carriers when comparing March 8 and February 8 data, have not been observed. : The higher level of average latency have been registered by Telia and CenturyLink; Hurricane Electric and Level 3 have registered the results close to the control group level; NTT and XO have presented the lower average latency values than the control group level; The aren t any big differences in the distribution of average packet latency for the analyzed Tier carriers in March 8 compared to February 8 results. : Cogent has registered the lower average latency of all the analysed carriers. Must be mentioned that at the regional level, all Tier carriers have registered roughly the same average packet latency; A significant change in average latency for the month of March, compared to February 8, has not been observed. : Hurricane Electric, Telia and NTT registered the lowest average packet latency values. Other carriers registred results which are close to the control group level; March 8 data for all carriers at the level is characterized by a higher average packet latency than the one for February 8. : In March 8 all carriers registered approximately the same average packet latency; The average packet latency has slightly increased for all Tier networks in March as compared to February data. Page 6

7 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Performance of each carrier in comparison to the control group Better or worse loss by provider (%) (higher is better) February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric Page 7

8 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 : Hurricane Electric kept a leading position in terms of packet loss as in the previous month, exceeding the packet loss average by.8%; Cogent and Telia has shown approximately the same result as the control group (4.6%); : All Tier s, except Hurricane Electric and CenturyLink, showed better results in terms of Loss. Hurricane Electric exceeded the packet loss average by ~ 3.5%, CenturyLink - by ~.3%. In comparison with the February 8 results, all carriers, except for Hurricane Electric and CenturyLink, showed better results in term of Loss. : As in February 8, Zayo, XO, CenturyLink, Level 3, NTT and GTT presented better results in terms of Loss. In March 8, performance values of each carrier when compared to the control group level (.3%) had approximately the same structure as in previous month. Zayo and XO registered a lower packet loss average than the control group level by ~.5%, followed by CenturyLink and Level 3 ~.3%. Hurricane Electric showed worse result in terms of Loss, exceeding the packet loss average by.5%. : All carriers at the level showed roughly the same results in term of Loss within the interval.5% to the control group level (.6%). Better results have registered CenturyLink, XO, Zayo, NTT, Level 3 and GTT. : A significant change in the distribution of the Loss results for March 8 when compared to the February 8 data has not been registered. Hurricane Electric was the only one migrating into the worse performing group, exceeding the packet loss average by.6%. Page 8

9 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Better or worse latency by provider (ms) (higher is better) February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric Page 9

10 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 : CenturyLink, Level 3 and Zayo kept the leading positions in terms of Latency. Hurricane Electric joined the winners group this month. NTT, XO and Level 3 surpassed the control group value (3. ms) by ~ms. : At the worldwide level all carriers, except for NTT and Hurricane Electric have registered better results in terms of Latency when compared to the control group latency average (,9 ms). : CenturyLink became the leader of the group in terms of average packet latency. This carrier went beyond the control group average value (6. ms) by ~ 3 ms. GTT, NTT and Level 3 were also among the better performing carriers. Hurricane Electric showed the worst result. : XO and GTT average packet latency values were roughly the same as the control group one (7, ms). Other Tier s showed better results. : Hurricane Electric, NTT and GTT have shown better average packet latency than the control group level (98 ms). The winner of this group - Hurricane Electric with.5 ms, is followed by NTT with. ms, and GTT with.6 ms respectively. Level 3 showed the worst results. Page

11 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Packet Loss Abnormally high losses were registered for a large number of datapoints. As was mentioned in previous reports we consider excessive an average above 4.5% packet loss. Given the fact that Tier carriers are characterized by both low loss values for some networks and abnormally high losses for the other networks, the conclusion is that high loss values are not caused by the carriers themselves but rather are caused by the networks they service or the networks they peer with. Whether the true cause is poor design, over-provisioned links or deficiencies in the peering governance - this report cannot tell. What we can mention is that for many networks, whether permanently or sporadically, there is definitely an opportunity to improve things. Average packet loss gain/loss by carrier (%) (all) February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric Page

12 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Average packet loss gain/loss by carrier (%) (up to 4,5% average) February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric Page

13 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 : Based on ALL data-points, all of the analysed carriers showed better positions in terms of Loss for each packet when compared to the control group. The best results were registered by XO, Level 3 and CenturyLink. After the cut off at the 4.5% control group level has been applied, ranking between the carriers has changed, however all of them still showed better values than the control group. : All Tier s registred better results than the control group. Level 3 showed the best loss values for each packet (its results being ~ % better than the control group level). Zayo and CenturyLink (with ~.3% -.5%) followed the leader. The cut off at the 4.5% control group level moved Cogent into the worse performing group. : Significant differences Between the averages determined for ALL datapoints and the averages obtained after the cut off at the 4.5% level has been applied have not been registered. All carriers showed better average loss values than the control group for each packet. : All carriers except for Cogent and Telia, registered better results in terms of loss for each packet based on ALL datapoints. All Tier s offered better loss average values than the control group once the the cut off at the 4.5% level has been applied. : Based on ALL data-points, better results of packet loss were registered by Hurricane Electric, Zayo, XO, CenturyLink and Level 3. After the cut off at the 4.5% control group level has been applied, Hurricane Electric left the better performing group. The positive tendency was registered by CenturyLink, Cogent and XO. Page 3

14 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Latency Tier Carriers have been mostly present within the following latency diapazons (ms): NTT Level 3 Cogent Zayo GTT Telia CenturyLink XO Hurricane Electic ms 7-9 ms ms ms ms 84-4 ms ms ms 7-7 ms ms 8 - ms 9 - ms ms 75-7 ms 85-6 ms ms 65-5 ms 94-9 ms ms 85-6 ms 9-5 ms ms ms 9-3 ms ms 93-3 ms 9 - ms NTT Level 3 Cogent Zayo GTT Telia CenturyLink XO Hurricane Electic 5-67 ms 4-35 ms ms 4-4 ms ms 9-46 ms ms 8-35 ms ms 5-33 ms ms 7-33 ms ms 4-33 ms ms 9-34 ms ms - 3 ms 5 Page 4

15 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 Average latency gain/loss by carrier (ms) (higher is better) The differences in latency from the control group level shown below are averaged with the expectation that better or worse performance will cancel out if the differences are caused by the measurement noise February Data: CenturyLink Cogent GTT Level 3 NTT Telia XO Zayo Hurricane Electric Page 5

16 Tier Carrier Performance Report: March 8 : All Tier carriers showed worse latency results than the control group. Hurricane Electric and GTT presented the worst results, adding ~ 9 ms and ~ 8 ms respectively to each packet s RTT in comparison with the control group level. : All carriers, except fro Zayo, showed the same behaviour as in the previous month. The worse result was registered by Hurricane Electric. : Telia and Cogent showed better results in the terms of latency for each packet in comparison with the other Tier s. Their average RTT being ~.6-.7 ms less than the control group level. Hurricane Electric kept the same tendency as in February 8, adding ~5 ms to the latency of each packet which transits it. : Cogent, Telia and CenturyLink showed better RTT for each packet in comparison to the control group. As in month of February 8, other Tier s registered worse result than the control group. Hurricane Electric showing the worst result, adding ~ ms to the latency of each packet. : All carriers, except for Level 3 and Hurricane Electric, have registered better average latency for each packet than the control group. Level 3 and Hurricane Electric showed approximately the same results (~. ms difference) as the control group value. Packet Loss and Latency spread charts highlighting individual Tier carriers results are available upon request. Page 6

17 This report was brought to you by Noction. Noction Intelligent Routing Platform enables enterprises and service providers to maximize end-to-end network performance and safely reduce infrastructure costs. The platform evaluates critical network performance metrics in real-time and responds quickly by automatically rerouting traffic through a better path to avoid outages and congestion. Request a free trial today and see how IRP can boost your network performance. Start a Free Trial Copyright 8 Noction Holdings Ltd, All Rights Reserved.