This was posted not to long ago in another list: (there are 10 of them this
>Gripe#1 UDP Packet Latency and Loss (aka Quake Lag)
>Quake players dialing into access networks hosting TC netservers have
>long experienced packet latency and loss resulting in unfavorable
>to impossible game play. These same players with their same equipment
>and settings can dial into non-TCS networks and receive substantialy
>lower "ping times" and better overall play. In effect, anyone playing
>quake though a Netserver is handicapped if not out of the game.
>This issue was reported 7 months ago or longer. And for most of those
>months, it's been generally know that the culprit is the Netserver..
>The hiperarc does not exhibit the problem at all or not to near the
>degree as the netserver. At the other end of the spectrum, a 48 port
>Netserver bundle (1706) with the "double-up" kit installed yields
>ping times off the scale. (and therefore very unfavorable game play)
>Please note that an ISP does not have to host a quake server for this
>to become a big problem. Any ISP is likely to have some customers
>who play quake on servers out over the net. When router hop latency
>is added to the "quake lag", it's is impossible to play under some
>Total Control configurations.
>Purchase HiperARC's (and break MPIP). No upgrade available.
>No apparent fix for the netserver.
>USR Engineers and ISP's have witnessed as much as 60% packet loss in UDP
>communication between a client and a TC Hub. A simple client/server was
>written, the server running on the ISP lan, and the client running on the
>users dialup connection. UDP packets are sent out, and then totalled on
>the server. Over the last six months, the problem has been fully examined
>and researched without resolution.
>This is the only problem in the list that I will comment on personally.
>(due to my considerable experience and expense at solving the problem)
>Our local competitors use 486 linux/cyclades boxes with (ironically)
>sportsters and don't have the problem.. USR management lead me to
>believe that there would be an upgrade path at reasonable expense for
>us Quake laggers. But it never came and we were loosing customers and
>were forced to upgrade to HiperARC's to rid ourselves of quake lag.
>ShreveNet, Inc. has spent over $12K to fix "Quake Lag" which is a problem
>that should have never existed. In fact, due to extreme price fluctuations,
>we were actually penialized for solving our problem early on compared to