Hi Cloudflare Community!
I’m in Tampa, FL, on Frontier Communications’ Fios (formerly Verizon), and have found 1.1.1.1’s response-times to be ~2.5x slower than Google’s 8.8.8.8. Even though there’s a Cloudflare Edge Server based here in Tampa, I’ve only ever seen responses come back from MIA or DFW. For 1.1.1.1 I seem to reliably get responses back from DFW only.
Here are some comparative pings and traces:
Pinging Google Public DNS:
$ ping -c 10 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=15.3 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=13.8 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=17.6 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=14.7 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=16.2 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=14.7 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=13.9 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=15.5 ms
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9012ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 12.746/14.761/17.643/1.437 ms
Pinging 1.1.1.1:
$ ping -c 10 1.1.1.1
PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=38.9 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=40.5 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=40.2 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=39.9 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=42.1 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=40.9 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=39.6 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=39.3 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=40.7 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=55 time=40.9 ms
--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9013ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.937/40.337/42.105/0.904 ms
Traceroute to Google Public DNS:
$ traceroute 8.8.8.8
traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 local_router (192.168.1.1) 78.280 ms 1.896 ms 1.063 ms
2 ###.###.###.### (###.###.###.###) 21.052 ms 6.836 ms 7.591 ms
3 172.99.45.84 (172.99.45.84) 139.782 ms
172.99.48.64 (172.99.48.64) 7.967 ms
172.99.45.82 (172.99.45.82) 8.824 ms
4 ae7---0.scr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.69) 12.339 ms
ae8---0.scr02.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.73) 12.145 ms 144.875 ms
5 ae0---0.cbr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.22) 11.845 ms
ae1---0.cbr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.126) 152.982 ms
ae0---0.cbr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.22) 14.217 ms
6 static-74-43-96-158.fnd.frontiernet.net (74.43.96.158) 14.333 ms 14.463 ms 274.661 ms
7 * * *
8 74.125.251.178 (74.125.251.178) 57.471 ms
108.170.226.250 (108.170.226.250) 16.642 ms
74.125.251.178 (74.125.251.178) 22.201 ms
9 108.170.228.43 (108.170.228.43) 11.825 ms
108.170.228.17 (108.170.228.17) 12.926 ms
108.170.228.35 (108.170.228.35) 14.955 ms
10 fwdr-8.fwdr-8.fwdr-8.fwdr-8 (8.8.8.8) 13.367 ms 13.986 ms 12.570 ms
Traceroute to 1.1.1.1:
$ traceroute 1.1.1.1
traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 local_router (192.168.1.1) 3.338 ms 1.853 ms 1.823 ms
2 ###.###.###.### (###.###.###.###) 19.482 ms 44.304 ms 9.756 ms
3 172.99.48.64 (172.99.48.64) 13.850 ms
172.99.45.84 (172.99.45.84) 10.202 ms 13.836 ms
4 ae7---0.scr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.69) 14.797 ms
ae8---0.scr02.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.73) 13.918 ms
ae7---0.scr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.69) 14.666 ms
5 ae2---0.scr01.mias.fl.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.162) 42.950 ms
ae3---0.scr02.dlls.tx.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.81) 41.920 ms 41.370 ms
6 ae3---0.scr02.dlls.tx.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.81) 39.892 ms 39.580 ms 39.952 ms
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com (1.1.1.1) 45.984 ms 42.401 ms 42.293 ms
I get nearly identical results when trying to reach basically anything hosted by Cloudflare, it bounces between Miami & Dallas within Frontier’s network, then ends up at Cloudflare in Dallas.
I understand the issue appears to be within Frontier’s network, but is there anything CF can do to help straighten things out? It appears even if the requests ended up routing through CF @ MIA the response times might be faster.
Any help you can provide on this subject would be greatly appreciated!
