Global Internet Routes: Why Your Data Takes the Long Way
When you send data from one corner of the world to another, you probably don't think about how it reaches its destination. However, as GeoCables monitoring shows, the path your packets take can be far more convoluted than it seems at first glance. Let’s consider the case of the route from Sydney (Australia) to Melaka (Malaysia), which serves as an example of complex and inefficient traffic routing.
How far did the data travel?
The direct distance between Sydney and Melaka is 6,560 km, which is the minimum path length if data could "fly" directly. However, instead, the data passed through several intermediate points, including Osaka (Japan), Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and other cities in Malaysia, adding an extra 4,992 km to the route. As a result, the total data path was significantly extended, and its latency (RTT) reached 255 ms, which is about four times the theoretical minimum of 66 ms possible with a direct connection.
Why does traffic go through Osaka?
Major network providers played a key role in the route. Notably, AS2914 (NTT America, Inc.), a global transit operator with extensive infrastructure, was involved. Its network covers strategically important traffic exchange points, such as Osaka and Singapore, which explains the choice of this path. However, this also highlights the lack of direct connections between local operators in Australia (e.g., AS9268 Over The Wire Pty Ltd) and Malaysia (AS45352 IP ServerOne Solutions Sdn Bhd, AS140344 Takizo Solutions Sdn Bhd), forcing traffic to take a detour through Japan and other regions.
This situation is often caused by the absence of direct peering (mutual traffic exchange) between providers, as well as economic factors: transit through global operators like NTT can be cheaper or technically simpler for local networks. Additionally, submarine cable landing points play a key role in route selection. For example, Sydney and Osaka are connected by numerous high-speed cable systems, making Japan a popular transit hub for traffic from Australia.
Practical consequences for users
Latency of 255 ms instead of 66 ms has noticeable consequences for users. Video calls, for instance, become less comfortable due to the noticeable delay in speech transmission, making natural communication difficult. Online gaming, where every millisecond counts, becomes practically unsuitable for competitive play, as players experience "lags" that can cost them victory. Financial traders working through cloud services also risk losing money due to data transmission delays, especially in high-frequency trading. Even high-quality video streaming can suffer from increased buffering, degrading the user experience.
Why does traffic go "off course"?
The main reason for such detours lies in the specifics of network infrastructure and routing. In this case, the lack of direct connections between operators in Australia and Malaysia, as well as economic priorities in choosing transit paths, forces data to follow longer routes. Global transit operators like NTT play a key role in delivering traffic, but their routes are not always geographically optimal. This is particularly evident in regions with less developed local infrastructure or complex geopolitical situations that affect the construction of new submarine cables and the development of peering agreements.
Real events: a live context
Infrastructure challenges are exacerbated by natural disasters and other events. For example, in July 2026, Australia experienced a green-level flood warning, and in August and September, several powerful earthquakes occurred in Indonesia, the closest of which, with a magnitude of 6.9, was just 315 km from the route. However, GeoCables data clearly shows that these events were not the cause of the detour. The problem lies in the routing and network infrastructure itself, not in cable damage or other direct consequences of natural disasters.
Nevertheless, such events highlight the vulnerability of global internet infrastructure. For instance, an earthquake in the Pacific Ring of Fire region could damage submarine cables, further increasing the load on remaining routes and exacerbating detours like this one.
Conclusion
This case of the route from Sydney to Melaka is a vivid example of how complex technical and economic factors lead to inefficient internet traffic routing. GeoCables analysis underscores the need to improve global network infrastructure, including the development of direct peering agreements and the construction of new submarine cables. For users, such delays can result in serious problems, from inconveniences during video calls to financial losses. In an era where the internet is a fundamental part of daily life, these issues require close attention and comprehensive solutions.
