Route architecture
The principles and trade-offs of three route types
A city name only identifies the region of the exit point; it does not by itself indicate connection quality. Understanding how traffic travels from entry to exit is more useful than looking at a city list alone when deciding which route fits a task.
IEPL
Best for stability-sensitive tasks
IEPL
IEPL routes typically place local access and the overseas exit on a more controlled path, reducing unpredictable detours across public networks. Their value is not limited to a better result in one test; during busy cross-border periods, sustained long connections, or lengthy file transfers, the path is more likely to remain consistent.
These routes generally cost more resources than relay and direct connections, making them better suited to video conferences, remote work, code repository synchronization, extended AI tool conversations, and high-bitrate streaming—tasks that are more sensitive to continuity. For a quick research session or ordinary web pages, a dedicated route is not necessary; reserve it for more important connections.
RELAY
Balance of coverage and cost
Relay routes
A relay route first connects to a nearer or better-suited entry point, then forwards traffic through a relay node to the destination region. This can avoid some less suitable international exit paths while offering more flexible regional coverage than IEPL. Its effectiveness depends on the entry point, cross-border segment quality, and exit resources—not simply on adding another hop.
Relay routes suit everyday browsing, regular streaming, AI tool use, and routine file synchronization, making them a balanced starting point in many cases. For a distant destination, begin with a relay entry point in the same region. If performance changes during peak hours, compare nearby cities or switch to IEPL rather than repeatedly trying routes across continents.
DIRECT
More direct regional entry
Direct routes
A direct route connects the current network straight to an exit in the destination region, with a simple structure and relatively few routing steps. Its performance depends more heavily on the public network path between your location and the target data center: when the path is suitable, the experience can be smooth and direct; when traffic detours or the cross-border exit is busy, fluctuations may be more noticeable.
Direct routes suit web searches, lightweight communication, temporary region changes, and tasks requiring a specific city exit. A shorter distance does not necessarily mean a better choice, and different route types in the same city can perform differently. If the connection is unstable, first compare a relay entry point in the same region, then try a nearby region instead of reconnecting to the same city repeatedly.
How cost differences affect route selection
Route costs mainly come from access, cross-border transmission, exit resources, and routing maintenance. IEPL invests more resources in a controlled path for tasks with higher continuity requirements; relay balances route quality, coverage, and resource cost; direct connections use a simpler structure and can serve as candidates for lightweight tasks and regional access.
Higher cost does not mean a route should always come first. The goal is to use an appropriate path for the task at hand: a nearby relay may better fit everyday needs than a distant IEPL route, while a well-positioned direct connection may be sufficient for web browsing. Keep candidates of different types and switch according to actual network conditions rather than treating route names as a fixed ranking.