you still manage get almost full speed  . myself only get 50Mbps average speed on 100Mbps

maybe m247 change routing to viewquest.

Didn't knew that even with peering agreement with M247 with TM and TIME the latency to Singapore is still this bad (>130ms).

I'm guessing something is very weird going on with these European providers who have PoPs in Asia playing tricks with their customers or our own local ISPs are intentionally throttling their customers.

Not just M247 Infra Singapore suffers from high latency from Malaysia. Even Telia Singapore Carrier nodes are also affected very badly. When you have ping times >100ms to even Singapore Tier-1 carriers it's not something normal.

Few possibilities:

1) These European ISPs are only PRIORITIZING traffic coming from Europe to access Asia's while the play dirty of blocking the OPPOSITE direction traffic heavily throttling traffic from Asia side going out to Europe the other WAY around. Thus you see pinging from Europe to Asia everything looks fine but from Asia side you trace back to Europe the latency becomes very high with packet losses.

2) Our local ISPs are INTENTIONALLY throttling consumers bandwidth/popular routing paths even when there's no known breakdown issue involved. This what we call "DOMESTIC TERRORISM". They do it to upsell their own premium services/business plans which promises solution to business users which desperately need the good routing paths back to their world HQs based in other continents. We've seen how cable cuts were mostly acts of vandalism in our country just to create extra jobs/opportunities for some people to gain from it. I've seen enough of these sort of dirty backstabbing games played in Malaysia.It's toxic!

3) So happen many are actually reading this forum and when they read that others recommend a certain server route to use, EVERYONE jumps on the same ship SINKING it! Which I doubt is this reason because M247 was all fine last year back in 2020 as well as 2019. It is one of the TOP EGRESS points and VPN server hosting provider in the world even before CDN77 took over them. Got moles from our local ISPs reading this forum wants to discourage Malaysians from using VPNs intentionally DDoS popular networks which are frequently mentioned?

NordVPN, SurfShark, Windscribe, PIA, and AirVPN, most of their servers are on M247 and CDN77 networks with over 10G capacity ports.It's almost IMPOSSIBLE for them to get congested.

GSL Networks have peering with TM, TIME and Maxis. It's an Australian company so many use it to achieve optimized route back to Australian servers even for gaming.

i think m247 routing got issue.. between SG ping also 100ms via NewMedia Express and CDN77. another thing is their route to EU/US west coast the ping latency are top notch!

so nothing to do with your maxis as before you mention got issue.

How do I know even TM who has peering with M247 also getting pings above 130ms??
I thought initially they don't want to layan Maxis because of not being one of their peering partner.

Seems they're de-prioritizing packets from Asia origin ISPs, only to serve packets coming from Europe side entering Asia like I mentioned point 1 above.

Which means they aim to help their European customers to gain access into Asia but not traffic from Asia going outwards to Europe.

You say their latency to EU/US is top notch these last few days were terrible! I just connected to M247 just now. Pings to Europe like Init 7 as high as over 400ms! Speedtest back to Malaysia to Allo server 2-3Mbps only!

Very obvious their server is de-prioritizing incoming traffic from Asia side.

How is your latency to TELIA Carrier Singapore node?

as previous thread mentioned, before the cable cut average ping was 45ms to 50ms via PCCW HK back to SG. Now their routing are rerouted to HK > JP > SG that why the ping latency are quite high.

snge-b1.telia.net >> 60ms average via HK back to SG also.

currently TM traffic for He.net / Telia are divert to HK back to SG then to EU.

Pinging from Maxis to Telia via Equinix SG directly latency is also over 100ms+!

Maxis don't even need to re-route via HK and back to SG also need over 100ms which is even worser.

What is wrong? Peering with Equinix SG is not everything, members who are not your peer list(in this case referring to Maxis) will also deprioritize your packets.

It's like having a key to a house(Equinix) but family members of the house are not obligated to allow you into their individual rooms because you've no peering arrangements with them directly?

i believe Maxis has rereoute the traffic to via HK > JP > back to Equinix or something similarity. Even the congestion the ping wouldn't reach 100ms as per SLA

i believe Maxis has rereoute the traffic to via HK > JP > back to Equinix or something similarity. Even the congestion the ping wouldn't reach 100ms as per SLA

Just to add, I'm pretty much done with M247.

If you look at most VPN providers out there they always have a set of at least 2 servers in their list for Singapore and many other major Asian destinations.

2 or more because of different needs. One is optimize for incoming traffic from other region such as Europe trying to access content in Asia and the other is the outgoing route for Asian side to other regions such as Europe/US.

I believe M247 is to serve customers which are from Europe trying to access Asian servers and contents not the other way around.

For those in Asia wanting to use Singapore as transit to connect to Europe/US there's always an alternative server which is non M247. Maybe CDN77, GSL Networks, Digital Ocean or SG.gs?

For me Maxis has peering with GSL Networks, and DO. It seems to connect well with CDN77 too via NTT America.
So yeah M247 is not favorable to Maxis but there're lots of alternatives out there.

Been thinking of switching from Mullvad to IVPN (mainly because they have a better interface and DNS level ad/tracker blocking on their iOS/iPadOS app), but this peering issue with M247 makes me hesitant.

At least on Mullvad, I can switch to one of the HKG/JPN (Leaseweb) or AU (Integrid) servers, or just use one of their owned 31173 servers in UK/EU region, but with IVPN, it seems to be just M247 servers for the Asian nodes. It's better this week, but between February to early March this year, SG-M247 was so bad it was unusable.

still prefer mullvad

are you using maxis fiber?

if using unifi you get average 45ms ping to SG M247 

Been thinking of switching from Mullvad to IVPN (mainly because they have a better interface and DNS level ad/tracker blocking on their iOS/iPadOS app), but this peering issue with M247 makes me hesitant.

At least on Mullvad, I can switch to one of the HKG/JPN (Leaseweb) or AU (Integrid) servers, or just use one of their owned 31173 servers in UK/EU region, but with IVPN, it seems to be just M247 servers for the Asian nodes. It's better this week, but between February to early March this year, SG-M247 was so bad it was unusable.

It could happen to any popular VPS infra ISP network out there so thread this with caution. Try contacting your VPN provider to see if they have any workaround solution to this. I'm convinced now that some of our ISPs are secretly throttling our VPN connections from behind after trying out the solution suggested by the industry insider.

Not asking to name your industry insider, but it would help if you could share or link me to some resource/study/whitepaper that gives an idea of what "this" is, so that I can include it in my email to my VPN provider. If not, can you at least explain to me what kind of terms/nomenclature I should use when communicating with them? If I simply email them saying "M247 poor peering, please fix" I don't think they'll have much to work on.

Fwiw, back when the performance was bad, it was only on my home UniFi network. It seemed to be better on my cellular data (Celcom) network, so it was definitely a M247-to-TM issue for my case. Currently connected to SG-m247 at home again and performance seems stable (low ping, decent download speeds, no disconnections), although peering to certain CDNs still seems slow/throttled sometimes.

From what I've heard, the reason many of these commercial VPN providers employ M247 is because;
1. Large network, so less hassle. Sign contract/paperwork with one provider and have access to many locations, as opposed to individually hunting for best providers in individual countries.
2. M247 (supposedly) don't do logging at hypervisor level if requested by customers.

I fired up a WireGuard VPN instance (via Algo) on a DigitalOcean droplet (SG) today and performance is stellar. Easily saturates my connection speed, but that's only useful for basic privacy (hide my history from TM and protecting me on public wifi) and not really a wise option for anonymous P2P "Linux ISO" torrenting and whatnot.

Not asking to name your industry insider, but it would help if you could share or link me to some resource/study/whitepaper that gives an idea of what "this" is, so that I can include it in my email to my VPN provider. If not, can you at least explain to me what kind of terms/nomenclature I should use when communicating with them? If I simply email them saying "M247 poor peering, please fix" I don't think they'll have much to work on.

Fwiw, back when the performance was bad, it was only on my home UniFi network. It seemed to be better on my cellular data (Celcom) network, so it was definitely a M247-to-TM issue for my case. Currently connected to SG-m247 at home again and performance seems stable (low ping, decent download speeds, no disconnections), although peering to certain CDNs still seems slow/throttled sometimes.

From what I've heard, the reason many of these commercial VPN providers employ M247 is because;
1. Large network, so less hassle. Sign contract/paperwork with one provider and have access to many locations, as opposed to individually hunting for best providers in individual countries.
2. M247 (supposedly) don't do logging at hypervisor level if requested by customers.

I fired up a WireGuard VPN instance (via Algo) on a DigitalOcean droplet (SG) today and performance is stellar. Easily saturates my connection speed, but that's only useful for basic privacy (hide my history from TM and protecting me on public wifi) and not really a wise option for anonymous P2P "Linux ISO" torrenting and whatnot.

@heLL_bOy & @Candy12
I just sent them traceroute dumps of my IP (while disconnected from their VPN) to their SG WireGuard (the protocol I use) servers. It seems a couple of other users in the region have had similar complaints.

They said they'll get M247 to switch transit/peering providers on 2 of their SG WireGuard servers (out of total 4) to my ISP and told me to see if there's any improvement. They said they've done so in the past as well for SG. Current transit and peering capabilities for M247-SG servers are Telia, PCCW, China Mobile International & Tata Communications.

Problem is, those traceroutes were done when performance recovered. I'll need to send another dump if/when performance degrades again.

At the moment they can only offer M247 for SG. They (Mullvad) claim Leaseweb used to give headaches because of their (Leaseweb's) abuse system and nullrouting exit IPs due to DMCA issues, etc.

Will wait and see how it goes.

@heLL_bOy & @Candy12
I just sent them traceroute dumps of my IP (while disconnected from their VPN) to their SG WireGuard (the protocol I use) servers. It seems a couple of other users in the region have had similar complaints.

They said they'll get M247 to switch transit/peering providers on 2 of their SG WireGuard servers (out of total 4) to my ISP and told me to see if there's any improvement. They said they've done so in the past as well for SG. Current transit and peering capabilities for M247-SG servers are Telia, PCCW, China Mobile International & Tata Communications.

Problem is, those traceroutes were done when performance recovered. I'll need to send another dump if/when performance degrades again.

At the moment they can only offer M247 for SG. They (Mullvad) claim Leaseweb used to give headaches because of their (Leaseweb's) abuse system and nullrouting exit IPs due to DMCA issues, etc.

Will wait and see how it goes.

The problem is TM upload the packet thru PCCW HK then to PCCW SG back to M247. But download packet from M247 are from Equinix SG back to TM which is not a balancing path.

hope to see some improvement on M247, today i check that M247have added 10Gbps port to Equinix SG.

is good for them use IP-transit other then Equinix peering due to M247 only having in total 20Gbps which previously only 10Gbps with Equinix which is insufficient at all.

but still Leaseweb are better then M247 in my opinion in terms of routing if using around US and ASIA.

I've moved away from M247 to another provider since. No more issues until now so far.
There are so many other SG based ISPs that are far more dependable.

CDN77, Stackpath (Highwinds) and 8 to Infinity SG (Telin International Group)

IPVanish and Golden Frog VyperVPN uses Stackpath servers.