貼一下我寫信問 CloudFlare 的回覆
*****
The response here remains the same as the last time you had submitted
a ticket about traffic on HiNet. We've reached out to HiNet here
regarding the performance, but we're dependent on HiNet deciding to
increase capacity.
We're working hard to deploy a point of presence into Taiwan.
Today, we are filling up the connectivity of our partners (eg. pacnet,
Telstra, NTT) into Taiwan and Hinet is prohibitive in upgrading the
capacity with them (or with us directly).
We'll continue to push the issue with HiNet as well as shift traffic
in an effort to improve performance.
*****
另一封
The issue is with HiNet & Pacnet's links together, our understanding
is HiNet have congested their links with Pacnet. We have no direct
relationship HiNet, but obviously we do with Pacnet. As such we've
spoken to them about the issue and they have confirmed that HiNet's
links are congested. Unfortunately there is nothing CloudFlare can do
to influence this further, as much as we would love to.
*****
※ 引述《birdy590 (Birdy)》之銘言：
: 從上面資料可以做出幾點判斷
: 1. CloudFlare 在日本放在 Equinix Tokyo
: 2. 內容業者通常都開放 peering, 所以在這裡也加入了 MLPE
: 日本的大手業者不會讓你這樣連, 所以只能搞定像 3 的獨立業者
: 3. 只靠 peering 當然不夠, 需要另外買 IP transit. 在美國通常是找一家
: Tier-1 就夠... 亞洲的狀況複雜一點, 如果不是找 NTT 之類(貴)
: 可能會需要兩家區域性的大型業者才夠.
: 4. 以這個 case 而言, 它只買了一家就是 PACNET. 凡是沒有在 Equinix
: 跟它互連的, 全都要靠 PACNET 轉送.
: CloudFlare <-> PACNET 的頻寬應該沒有問題, 否則日本當地業者也會一起爛
: (以 NTT 為例, 雖然中間轉了兩家業者但 latency 還是很低)
: Hinet 在台灣沒有接 PACNET, 實際狀況看在日本應該也沒有(都有商業考量在)
: 香港在亞洲而言網路環境是相對比較開放, 這兩家終於有機會見面了
: 但是 Hinet 可以從香港進 PACNET, 不代表 PACNET 也會從香港回 Hinet
: 初步測試多找了幾個點 latency 可能都是從美國回(不意外, 這樣最便宜)
: 治本的方法是 CloudFlare 至少再找一家客戶區域連線品質較好的上游買
: IP Transit 就搞定, 否則日本/台灣各自的網路環境絕對是卡死到底