I've been seeing the same thing and was thinking it was me.
Just to add to some of the results here...
Verizon FIOS
1 32 ms 3 ms 5 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1]
2 33 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-7.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.183.186]
3 22 ms 22 ms 21 ms xe-4-1-8-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.84]
4 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms 0.so-0-0-0.xt2.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.17.21]
5 58 ms 24 ms 24 ms tengige0-5-4-0.gw8.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.18.206]
6 * 76 ms 76 ms google-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.62]
7 25 ms 21 ms 24 ms 209.85.255.68
8 21 ms 34 ms 34 ms 209.85.252.242
9 30 ms 28 ms 31 ms 209.85.249.11
10 31 ms 29 ms 29 ms 72.14.236.149
11 38 ms 36 ms 36 ms 72.14.238.173
12 31 ms 29 ms 31 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8]
Comcast
1 33 ms 15 ms 25 ms 68.38.220.1
2 8 ms 10 ms 15 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237]
3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89]
4 14 ms 15 ms 15 ms pos-3-6-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.92.161]
5 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.86.26]
6 * 23 ms 25 ms 75.149.231.62
7 17 ms 15 ms 14 ms 209.85.252.46
8 17 ms 16 ms 15 ms 72.14.238.173
9 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8]
Our datacenter
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101]
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 70.34.251.9
3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233]
4 2 ms 3 ms 2 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174]
5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 72.14.213.61
6 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 216.239.46.248
7 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 72.14.238.173
8 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms iad23s05-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.228.8]
It would be nice if the ISPs and content providers could work out something when dealing with this much traffic and clearly needing to add capaicty. It's nice to dream too...
John
I think your trace routes are just to their web servers. You need to figure out where the actual videos are being streamed from. I used the Developer Tools (Network tab) in Google Chrome to figure this out. The FQDNs will probably look like the ones in my trace routes.
Derek
Yup... This might be more helpful.
I went to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com for better comparison.
Verizon FIOS
1 8 ms 4 ms 4 ms l100.cmdnnj-vfttp-27.verizon-gni.net [98.110.113.1]
2 9 ms 6 ms 7 ms g0-3-3-6.cmdnnj-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.182.44]
3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-9-1-2-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.144]
4 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms 0.xe-3-1-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net [152.63.26.117]
5 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms 204.255.168.118
6 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms 144.232.4.93
7 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms sl-crs4-nyc-0-3-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.7.122]
8 25 ms 22 ms 24 ms sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-2.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.164]
9 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.25.15]
10 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34]
11 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms 208.117.251.184
Comcast
1 27 ms 31 ms 21 ms 68.38.220.1
2 8 ms 9 ms 11 ms xe-11-3-0-0-sur01.burlington.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.128.237]
3 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms xe-13-0-0-0-ar03.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.85.62.89]
4 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms pos-4-0-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.93.233]
5 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms be-27-pe06.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.82.174]
6 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms 144.232.6.97
7 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms sl-st31-ash-0-4-0-3.sprintlink.net [144.232.3.169]
8 34 ms 32 ms 31 ms sl-googl10-584821-0.sprintlink.net [144.228.205.34]
9 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms 208.117.251.184
Our DC
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms static.razorinc.net [70.34.208.101]
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mx1.razorinc.net [70.34.252.9]
3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xe-0-2-0.phi10.ip4.tinet.net [199.168.63.233]
4 3 ms 8 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-1.was14.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.181.174]
5 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms as2828.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.68.14]
6 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 216.156.8.189.ptr.us.xo.net [216.156.8.189]
7 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 209.48.42.86
8 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 208.117.251.184
John
Jumping into the bandwagon here to help out.
Here's the result from RIT to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com, going through
at least 4 hops through XO territory.
traceroute to r19.sn-p5qlsm7d.c.youtube.com (208.117.251.184), 30 hops max,
60 byte packets
1 rit-west1-gw-014-vlan453.rit.edu (129.21.153.254) 0.593 ms 0.584 ms
0.576 ms
2 rit-core1-pp-west2-vlan824.rit.edu (129.21.8.93) 1.938 ms 1.941 ms
2.116 ms
3 rit-rit1-pp-core1-vlan2811.rit.edu (129.21.8.42) 0.508 ms 0.497 ms
0.484 ms
4 te-7-2.car2.Buffalo1.Level3.net (4.59.214.21) 2.293 ms 2.294 ms 2.282
ms
5 ae-4-4.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.140.242) 10.332 ms 10.339 ms
11.022 ms
6 ae-72-72.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.38) 15.274 ms 10.212 ms
ae-92-92.csw4.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.46) 10.204 ms
7 ae-1-60.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.16) 10.202 ms
ae-2-70.edge2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.80) 10.174 ms 10.171 ms
8 206.111.13.65.ptr.us.xo.net (206.111.13.65) 10.160 ms 10.345 ms
10.336 ms
9 207.88.14.185.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.185) 18.555 ms 18.541 ms
20.749 ms
10 ae0d1.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (207.88.13.65) 16.241 ms 16.322 ms
16.261 ms
11 209.48.42.86 (209.48.42.86) 16.673 ms 64.114 ms 64.054 ms
12 208.117.251.184 (208.117.251.184) 16.313 ms 16.306 ms 16.486 ms
-MJ
RIT is probably on a commercial circuit and from what i have seen on this
chain so far, it is only affecting home/consumer users. At MSOE (msoe.edu)
i dont show any latency but we are on TWTC. Anyone chime in if that is
wrong.
-Grant
Also if your upstream has Google Global Cache (or whatever it's
called), the results can be very different I suppose.
Does Google use different naming structure for IPv6 CDN? Maybe this
particular cache does not offer IPv6.
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. 60 IN CNAME
r3.sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com.
r3.sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. 1800 IN A 64.53.1.78
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. IN AAAA
;; ANSWER SECTION:
r3---sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com. 60 IN CNAME
r3.sn-n2uxaxjvh-j5xe.c.youtube.com.
Level3 peers with Google, I am curious why it hand the traffic off to XO.
I had the opportunity to look at this from a TWC fiber customer in Ohio, and this did not seem to affect them.