Firstly, thx to all who have taken an interest in this thread, especially the moderators.
I’m pasting the body of the reply from the technical team below for anyone who wishes to know the final outcome. Ultimately, it appears that the routes via Perth and the lower latency undersea cables for these particular Singaporean servers are not being advertised to TPG by their available networking peers, and instead the routes take TPG customers via LA - causing the higher latency.
I’ll not comment further beyond acknowledging that I have agreed to close the ticket, on the basis that TPG is unable to make the service any better at this time. I am disappointed with the outcome, especially when competitors in this space don’t seem to suffer from the same routing issues (refer my previous post regarding the lookingglass services)... hopefully sometime in the future peering arrangements can be negotiated that rectify this.
Cheers, and have a good day one and all.
————————- Body of final TPG reply follows::
Thank you for choosing TPG as your service provider.
We note that you reported Latency issue with your internet service specifically when reaching SEA Servers.
This concern has been raised to our Network Team's attention.
After thorough investigation, we have come to the conclusion that the route in-place is the optimal route currently available for your service considering Network traffic and available sources.
TPG is unable to learn route from our Asia Peer thus the connection routes to Los Angeles Server which is advertised by our peer.
To add, TPG cannot control any routing from the ISP where this server is connected. It will depend if they want TPG to learn the route via Asia.
Future changes may come into place however we do not have definite date at the moment.
We have concluded our investigation of the fault you have reported, all equipment within the TPG network is working normally.
If you choose to remain a TPG customer please be aware that at this stage no further action can be taken to improve the quality of your service. Additionally you will continue to be charged as normal for the service provided.
Well here is my current latency after churn - I tested 3 days ago just prior to the TPG connection going down, and had same route and latency as per first page of this thread.
Perhaps if I cut out the identification of the other provider (which I suspect may be the problem - although shouldn't be) the post won't be removed? This trace is to one of the Singaporean servers prior to the AWS gamelift server (which doesn't respond to ICMP traces/pings anyway). 90ms vs 250ms+ ... /sigh...