贴一下我写信问 CloudFlare 的回复
*****
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)》之铭言：
: 从上面资料可以做出几点判断
: 1. CloudFlare 在日本放在 Equinix Tokyo
: 2. 内容业者通常都开放 peering, 所以在这里也加入了 MLPE
: 日本的大手业者不会让你这样连, 所以只能搞定像 3 的独立业者
: 3. 只靠 peering 当然不够, 需要另外买 IP transit. 在美国通常是找一家
: Tier-1 就够... 亚洲的状况复杂一点, 如果不是找 NTT 之类(贵)
: 可能会需要两家区域性的大型业者才够.
: 4. 以这个 case 而言, 它只买了一家就是 PACNET. 凡是没有在 Equinix
: 跟它互连的, 全都要靠 PACNET 转送.
: CloudFlare <-> PACNET 的频宽应该没有问题, 否则日本当地业者也会一起烂
: (以 NTT 为例, 虽然中间转了两家业者但 latency 还是很低)
: Hinet 在台湾没有接 PACNET, 实际状况看在日本应该也没有(都有商业考量在)
: 香港在亚洲而言网络环境是相对比较开放, 这两家终于有机会见面了
: 但是 Hinet 可以从香港进 PACNET, 不代表 PACNET 也会从香港回 Hinet
: 初步测试多找了几个点 latency 可能都是从美国回(不意外, 这样最便宜)
: 治本的方法是 CloudFlare 至少再找一家客户区域连线品质较好的上游买
: IP Transit 就搞定, 否则日本/台湾各自的网络环境绝对是卡死到底