The problem this solves

Standard international transit to and from mainland China tends to route through congested peering points, often bouncing through several intermediary networks before reaching its destination. For any service with a real audience in or connected to mainland China, whether that’s a website, a game server, or an application backend, this shows up as elevated and inconsistent latency that a fast server and a well-optimized application can’t fix on their own, since the bottleneck sits in the network path, not on either endpoint.

What’s actually new

Performance KVM VPS in Tokyo and Singapore now includes routing designed specifically to minimize that bottleneck across all three major Chinese carriers: CTGNet for China Telecom, CUP for China Unicom, and CMIN2 for China Mobile. In practical terms, this means traffic on these optimized routes stays on well-connected carrier backbones for a longer portion of the journey, avoiding the peering points that cause the worst congestion on standard international routes. The result is lower, more consistent latency for China-facing traffic, particularly noticeable during periods that would otherwise see congestion-driven slowdowns on a standard route.

Why Tokyo and Singapore specifically

Both locations were already strong choices for Asia-Pacific hosting generally, well-connected, low-latency to a broad regional audience, and each offers a genuinely different profile worth understanding rather than treating as interchangeable.

Tokyo’s network runs on AS3258 with direct upstream relationships to China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, the same CTGNet, CUP, and CMIN2 routes covered above, alongside peering at BBIX Tokyo, JPNAP Tokyo, and Equinix IX, giving it strong, direct paths into all three major Chinese carrier networks.

Singapore brings a different advantage: proximity to China combined with a jurisdiction outside mainland Chinese regulatory reach, plus dense connectivity to the rest of Southeast Asia for services with a broader regional audience beyond China specifically.

Having the option to route through either location gives customers flexibility to choose based on their specific latency needs, regulatory preferences, or broader regional audience, rather than a one-size-fits-all answer.

Who this is for

This update matters most if your service has a meaningful volume of users, players, or traffic connecting from mainland China, or connecting through Chinese carrier networks more broadly. If China-facing traffic is a small or occasional part of your overall audience, the benefit will be proportionally smaller, though it costs nothing extra to have access to the improved routing where it’s available.

How to get started

Existing customers on our Singapore or Tokyo Gen 2 Performance KVM VPS already have CTGNet, CUP, and CMIN2 routing active, nothing to enable. New customers can order either Performance plan directly and get the same routing from day one.

What to expect, and what we’re not claiming

We want to be direct about scope here: optimized routing improves the network path, it doesn’t change the underlying physics of distance entirely, and it won’t deliver identical performance to every region within mainland China equally, since route quality can vary by specific destination even on a well-optimized path.

It also doesn’t substitute for adequate server resources on your end. A well-routed but underpowered instance will still perform poorly for reasons unrelated to the network path. We’d rather you go in with an accurate picture of what this update does than an inflated one.

How to verify it for yourself

Rather than asking you to take our word for it, we’d encourage testing this directly. Run a traceroute from a Chinese IP address, or use a public looking glass tool if you have access to one, and compare the results against what you’d expect from standard international transit to the same destination. A genuinely optimized route should show fewer hops and more consistent latency, particularly during periods that would typically see the worst congestion on a standard path.

Wrapping up

This update is aimed squarely at customers who’ve felt the specific pain of poor China-facing network performance and haven’t had a straightforward way to address it without adding complexity to their infrastructure. If that’s you, it’s worth testing the improved routing directly rather than assuming based on this announcement alone, and our team is available to help confirm it’s active and answer any questions about how it applies to your specific setup.

Ready to see the difference? V.PS’s Performance KVM VPS includes CTGNet, CUP, and CMIN2 routing in both Singapore and Tokyo Gen 2, with transparent specs and no oversold resources.

Frequently asked questions about China-optimized routing at V.PS

Do I need to change anything on my existing server to use this?

No. The routing improvement happens at the network level and is already active on every Performance KVM VPS in Tokyo and Singapore, nothing to enable in your server’s configuration.

Is this available on every V.PS plan?

No, it’s specific to our Performance KVM VPS line in Tokyo and Singapore. Other plan tiers in those cities, and all other locations, aren’t part of this rollout, since the optimized routing depends on carrier relationships and infrastructure specific to the Performance line in these two cities.

Does this cost extra?

No, it’s included on every Performance KVM VPS plan in Tokyo and Singapore, not billed as a separate add-on.

How much of a difference will I actually see?

It depends heavily on how much of your traffic is China-facing and what your baseline performance looked like before. Services with a substantial China-based audience tend to see the most noticeable improvement.

Can I test the routing before committing to a plan?

Yes, reach out to our team about a trial or test IP, and we can also point you to relevant looking glass or testing resources to verify performance independently.

Does optimized routing work the same for China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile users?

Not identically. Each carrier operates a largely separate network, so CTGNet (China Telecom), CUP (China Unicom), and CMIN2 (China Mobile) each behave a little differently, though every Performance KVM VPS in Tokyo and Singapore includes all three routes so your traffic gets a direct path regardless of which carrier your audience is on.

Will this improve performance for users outside mainland China too?

Not specifically, this update is targeted at improving the network path to and from mainland China. Users elsewhere in Asia-Pacific were already served well by Tokyo and Singapore’s existing connectivity and shouldn’t see a meaningful change either way.

Why proximity alone doesn’t settle this

As covered in more detail elsewhere on our blog, physical distance to mainland China is a weaker predictor of actual performance than carrier routing quality. A server in Hong Kong isn’t automatically faster for Chinese users than a server in Tokyo just because it’s closer on a map, since what actually matters is whether that server’s network has a direct, optimized relationship with the specific Chinese carrier its users are on. With that in mind, here’s what each location brings independent of raw distance.

Tokyo, Japan

Tokyo offers strong, verifiable network infrastructure for China-facing traffic. Our Tokyo network runs on AS3258 with direct upstream relationships to China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, meaning traffic to and from all three major Chinese carriers has a direct path rather than routing through unrelated intermediary networks. Tokyo also peers at major regional exchanges, including BBIX Tokyo, JPNAP Tokyo, and Equinix IX, which strengthens connectivity to the broader Asia-Pacific region beyond just China-facing traffic specifically.

Japan sits outside mainland Chinese jurisdiction entirely, and its overall internet infrastructure is mature and stable, backed by a well-developed domestic network ecosystem. The trade-off is that Tokyo is physically farther from mainland China than Hong Kong or Singapore, though as covered above, that raw distance matters less than the quality of the carrier routing itself.

Singapore

Singapore combines reasonable physical proximity to China with a jurisdiction entirely outside mainland Chinese regulatory reach, plus dense connectivity to the rest of Southeast Asia, which matters if your audience extends beyond China specifically into the broader region. Singapore has built itself into a major international connectivity hub over the past several decades, with substantial international network infrastructure passing through it.

The consideration to weigh here is the same one that applies everywhere in this comparison: proximity alone doesn’t guarantee good Chinese-carrier routing, so it’s worth verifying a specific provider’s actual carrier relationships and route quality from a Singapore location rather than assuming proximity translates directly to performance.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong is often the first location people think of for China-facing hosting, given its geographic and historical proximity to mainland China. It operates under its own distinct legal and regulatory framework, separate from mainland China’s, which matters for some businesses’ jurisdiction preferences, while still offering a genuinely close physical location to Chinese users.

As with the other two locations, the deciding factor isn’t Hong Kong’s proximity itself, it’s whether a given provider’s network in Hong Kong actually has strong, direct routing to the Chinese carrier networks your specific audience uses, since proximity without matching route quality doesn’t automatically deliver a better experience than a farther location with better-engineered routing.

How to actually decide between them

If carrier routing quality is comparable across your options, jurisdiction and broader regional connectivity become the more relevant deciding factors, and this is where Tokyo’s regional exchange peering, Singapore’s Southeast Asia connectivity, and Hong Kong’s specific regulatory environment each offer a different profile worth matching to your business’s specific needs.

If you’re unsure about routing quality, verify it directly rather than assuming based on location. A traceroute from or to a Chinese IP address, or a public looking glass tool, tells you far more about actual performance than geographic proximity does.

If your audience extends beyond mainland China, into broader Southeast Asia or the wider Asia-Pacific region, factor that into the decision too, since a location optimized purely for China-facing performance might not be the best fit if a meaningful part of your audience is elsewhere in the region.

If jurisdiction matters to your business for regulatory or legal reasons independent of network performance, that’s a legitimate factor to weight directly, since all three locations sit outside mainland Chinese jurisdiction but under genuinely different legal frameworks from each other.

A word on testing before deciding

Regardless of which location you’re leaning toward, test it directly before committing to a long-term plan. Request a trial or test IP, run a traceroute to confirm the network path actually reflects a well-optimized route to the Chinese carrier your audience uses, and test at multiple times of day to check for peak-hour degradation. Marketing claims about “China-optimized” infrastructure are only as good as what they hold up to under an actual test.

Wrapping up

None of these three locations is universally “the best” for China-facing hosting, each has a genuinely different profile in carrier routing strength, jurisdiction, and regional connectivity, and the right choice depends on which of those factors matters most for your specific audience and business needs. What matters more than the location name on a pricing page is verifying the actual carrier routing quality behind it, since that’s what determines real-world performance far more than physical proximity does.

Ready to compare for yourself? V.PS’s Performance KVM VPS includes CTGNet, CUP, and CMIN2 routing in both Singapore and Tokyo Gen 2, with transparent specs and verifiable carrier routing.

Frequently asked questions about choosing between Singapore, Japan, and Hong Kong

Is Hong Kong always the fastest option since it’s closest to mainland China?

Not necessarily. Physical proximity is a weaker predictor of actual performance than carrier routing quality, so a farther location with better-optimized routing can outperform a closer one with only standard transit.

Does Tokyo’s distance from China put it at a disadvantage?

Not as much as you’d expect, since Tokyo’s network can have direct, optimized upstream relationships with all three major Chinese carriers, which matters more for actual performance than the raw physical distance involved.

Which location is best if my audience extends beyond mainland China into Southeast Asia?

Singapore’s dense regional connectivity makes it a strong choice for a broader Southeast Asian audience alongside China-facing traffic, though it’s worth weighing against your specific carrier routing needs too.

Do Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan all sit outside mainland Chinese jurisdiction?

Yes, all three operate under their own distinct legal frameworks separate from mainland China’s, though the specific regulatory environment differs meaningfully between them, which may matter for your business independent of network performance.

How can I verify which location will actually perform best for my specific audience?

Test directly with a trial or test IP, running a traceroute from or to a Chinese IP address to confirm real routing quality, rather than relying on assumptions based on geographic proximity alone.

Should jurisdiction or performance matter more in this decision?

It depends on your business. For most services, performance (verified through actual testing) should carry the most weight, but if your business has specific regulatory or legal requirements, jurisdiction may need to be weighted more heavily even if it means a small performance trade-off.

The problem China-optimized routes are built to solve

The internet doesn’t move data in a straight line between two points. It routes traffic through a chain of networks based on peering agreements and business relationships between those networks, not physical distance.

For traffic to and from mainland China, that chain often passes through a limited set of congested peering points, and each additional hop adds latency, while congestion at those peering points adds further, unpredictable delay during high-traffic periods.

A server that’s otherwise well-specified and well-located can still deliver a poor experience to China-based users if the network path between them is bad, and no amount of server-side optimization fixes a problem that’s happening in the network in between.

What “optimized” actually means, mechanically

A China-optimized route is a network path specifically engineered to minimize that problem, typically by staying on a well-connected carrier’s own backbone for a longer stretch of the journey rather than handing off early to congested, general-purpose transit. Each of China’s three major carriers, China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, operates a largely separate network with its own international gateways, so each has built its own version of this premium product rather than there being one universal “China-optimized” route.

The three carriers, and what each route actually delivers

China Telecom: CTGNet. Formerly marketed as CN2 GIA (Global Internet Access) and still often called that, CTGNet (AS23764, AS4809) is China Telecom’s premium backbone and the most well-known of the three, since China Telecom is the largest of the carriers and covers the broadest geographic footprint. The value is straightforward: traffic stays on China Telecom’s own network for a longer stretch of the route instead of handing off early to congested general-purpose transit, which shows up as fewer hops on a traceroute and lower, more consistent latency for China Telecom users specifically.

China Unicom: CUP (China Unicom Premium, AS9929/AS10099) does the same job for China Unicom’s network, keeping traffic off the standard, more congested paths and on Unicom’s own premium backbone instead. If your audience skews toward China Unicom rather than China Telecom, a CUP route will generally outperform CTGNet for those specific users, even though CTGNet gets more attention in general hosting discussions.

China Mobile: CMIN2 (China Mobile International N2, AS58807) is China Mobile’s premium route and the newest of the three to become widely available in commercial hosting. It delivers the same core benefit, fewer hops and more consistent throughput, for traffic reaching China Mobile’s network specifically, which matters given how much of China Mobile’s user base connects over mobile data rather than fixed broadband.

Why this isn’t just marketing language

It’s worth being clear that “optimized route” is a real, verifiable technical claim when it’s genuine, not an abstract quality descriptor. A specific route either does or doesn’t stay on a premium carrier backbone for a meaningful portion of its path, and that’s checkable through a traceroute, which shows the actual sequence of networks traffic passes through to reach its destination. This is different from vaguer marketing terms like “fast” or “reliable,” which don’t point to anything specific you can independently verify.

What a genuinely optimized route typically delivers

• Lower average latency to and from mainland China compared to standard international transit, since the path spends less time on congested general-purpose networks.
• More consistent performance, particularly noticeable during peak hours when standard routes are most likely to show congestion-driven slowdowns.
• Fewer network hops, generally correlating with fewer points of potential failure or delay along the path.

What it doesn’t guarantee

Uniform performance across all of mainland China. Route quality can vary by specific region, since the physical backbone infrastructure doesn’t reach every area with equal strength, and a route can perform excellently to one major city while only being average to a more remote province.

Equal benefit across all three carriers. A route optimized for China Telecom traffic doesn’t automatically deliver the same benefit to a user on China Unicom or China Mobile’s network, since these are genuinely separate networks with separate peering arrangements.

Immunity to congestion entirely. Even a well-optimized route can degrade during unusually high demand periods if a provider hasn’t provisioned adequate capacity on that specific route, which is why testing at different times of day tells you more than a single test.

Compensation for underpowered hardware. A well-routed but resource-constrained server will still perform poorly, since routing addresses the network path, not what happens once traffic reaches the server itself.

How to tell if a specific provider’s claim is real

Ask which specific carrier route is involved by name (CTGNet, still often marketed as CN2 GIA, for China Telecom; CUP; or CMIN2), rather than accepting a generic “China-optimized” label without detail. Run a traceroute from or to a Chinese IP address, or use a public looking glass tool, and look for the traffic staying on the relevant carrier’s backbone for a meaningful portion of the path.

Test at more than one time of day, since peak-hour performance is often the more revealing test of whether a route is genuinely well-provisioned or just performs well when demand is low.

Wrapping up

China-optimized routing is a specific, checkable technical claim about how a network path is engineered, not a vague marketing descriptor, and understanding the mechanics behind it makes it much easier to tell a genuine implementation from a loosely used label. The core idea is straightforward: keep traffic on a well-connected carrier’s own backbone for as much of the journey as possible, avoiding the congestion points that make standard transit to and from China unpredictable.

Curious what a real optimized route looks like? V.PS’s Performance KVM VPS in Singapore and Tokyo Gen 2 includes CTGNet, CUP, and CMIN2 routing by default, verifiable through your own traceroute testing.

Frequently asked questions about China-optimized routes

Is China-optimized routing the same thing as CTGNet (CN2 GIA)?

CTGNet, formerly marketed as CN2 GIA and still often called that, is one specific example, tied to China Telecom. China-optimized routing is the broader category, which also includes equivalent products for China Unicom (CUP) and China Mobile (CMIN2).

Can I verify a China-optimized routing claim myself?

Yes. A traceroute from or to a Chinese IP address, or a public looking glass tool, will show the actual path traffic takes, letting you check whether it stays on a premium carrier backbone or routes through standard, more congested transit.

Does China-optimized routing help equally for all three Chinese carriers?

No. Each carrier, China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, operates a largely separate network, so a route optimized for one doesn’t automatically deliver the same benefit to users on a different carrier.

Will China-optimized routing fix all my latency issues for China-based users?

It addresses the network path specifically, which is often the biggest factor, but server resources, application efficiency, and the specific region within China your users are in can all still affect overall performance.

How much does China-optimized routing typically cost compared to standard hosting?

It varies by provider, since it requires specific carrier agreements and infrastructure investment beyond standard international transit. Whether it’s worth the added cost depends on how much of your traffic is genuinely China-facing.

Does route quality stay consistent over time?

Not necessarily. Carrier relationships, peering agreements, and provisioned capacity can all change, which is part of why periodic re-testing, not just a one-time check at signup, is worth doing if China-facing performance matters to your service long-term.

Why distance isn’t the right variable here

The internet routes traffic based on the specific path of networks and peering agreements between them, not the physical distance a signal has to travel.

A server in Hong Kong, geographically close to mainland China, can still have a slow, congested connection to Chinese users if the network path between Hong Kong and the relevant Chinese carrier isn’t well optimized. Meanwhile, a server in Tokyo, considerably farther away in kilometers, can outperform that closer Hong Kong server if Tokyo’s network has a direct, well-optimized route into the same Chinese carrier’s backbone.

Distance sets a physical floor on latency, but for most real-world cases, the network path adds far more delay than the raw distance does, which is exactly why carrier routing ends up mattering just as much, if not more, than location in practice.

What actually determines the network path

China’s internet infrastructure is split across three major carriers, China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, each operating largely separate networks with their own international gateways and peering arrangements. Whether a given server has a good connection to Chinese users depends on whether that server’s network has a direct, optimized relationship with the specific carrier those users are on, not simply on how many kilometers separate the two locations.

A server with strong upstream relationships to all three major carriers will generally outperform a geographically closer server that only has standard, unoptimized transit, regardless of the raw distance involved.

A concrete example

Take two hypothetical servers: one in Hong Kong with only standard international transit, and one in Tokyo with direct upstream relationships to China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, plus peering at major regional exchanges.

Despite Hong Kong’s proximity advantage on a map, the Tokyo server’s traffic to a China Telecom user could easily show fewer hops and lower, more consistent latency than the Hong Kong server’s, simply because the network path is better engineered, even though the physical distance is considerably longer.

This isn’t a hypothetical edge case, it’s a pattern that shows up consistently enough that experienced infrastructure teams evaluate routing quality before location whenever China-facing performance actually matters.

Where location still matters

This doesn’t mean location is irrelevant, just that it’s not the primary variable for China-facing traffic specifically. Location still affects latency to non-China audiences in the broader region, matters for jurisdiction and regulatory considerations (a Singapore-based server sits outside mainland Chinese legal jurisdiction, for instance, which matters for some businesses independent of network performance), and affects the baseline physical floor on latency once carrier routing is equally good between two options.

If you’re choosing between two providers with genuinely comparable routing quality, location becomes the relevant tiebreaker. It’s only not the primary decision factor when routing quality varies significantly between the options, which, in this space, it usually does.

How to evaluate a provider on the metric that actually matters

Ask which specific carrier routes are supported, by name, CTGNet (CN2 GIA) for China Telecom, CUP for China Unicom, CMIN2 for China Mobile, rather than accepting a vague “optimized for China” claim without detail.

Check which carriers the provider’s network has direct upstream relationships with, not just which exchanges it peers at generally, since direct upstream relationships to Chinese carriers specifically are what actually shortens the path.

Run your own traceroute test from or to a Chinese IP address rather than relying on a provider’s marketing claims, and compare the hop count and consistency against what you’d expect from a genuinely optimized route.

Test at multiple times of day, since peak-hour congestion reveals whether a route is genuinely well-provisioned or only performs well under light demand.

Wrapping up

For a China-facing service, evaluating providers primarily by physical proximity to China is a reasonable-sounding instinct that leads to worse decisions than evaluating by carrier routing quality directly. The question that actually predicts performance isn’t “how close is this server to China,” it’s “does this server’s network have a direct, optimized relationship with the specific Chinese carrier my users are on.” Once you’re comparing providers with genuinely similar routing quality, location becomes a sensible tiebreaker, but it shouldn’t be the first filter.

Want to see how routing quality compares to raw distance for yourself? V.PS’s Performance KVM VPS in Singapore and Tokyo Gen 2 includes CTGNet, CUP, and CMIN2 routing by default, and Tokyo runs on AS3258 with direct upstream relationships to all three major Chinese carriers.

Frequently asked questions about routing versus location for China-facing hosting

Isn’t a server physically closer to China always going to have lower latency?

Not necessarily. Network routing quality, specifically whether a server’s network has a direct, optimized path into a Chinese carrier’s backbone, tends to matter just as much, if not more, than raw physical distance for China-facing traffic.

Does this mean location doesn’t matter at all?

No, location still matters for jurisdiction considerations, for latency to non-China regional audiences, and as a tiebreaker once you’re comparing providers with genuinely comparable routing quality.

How do I know if a provider’s network actually has good carrier routing?

Ask which specific Chinese carrier routes are supported by name, and verify independently with a traceroute from or to a Chinese IP address rather than relying solely on marketing claims.

Why does China have three separate carriers that each need separate optimization?

China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile operate largely separate physical networks with their own international gateways, so an optimized route built for one doesn’t automatically carry the same benefit to users on a different carrier’s network.

Can a server far from China ever outperform one that’s closer?

Yes, this is common. A well-routed server with direct upstream carrier relationships can outperform a geographically closer server that only has standard, unoptimized international transit.

Should I ignore location entirely when choosing a China-facing hosting provider?

Not entirely, but it shouldn’t be your first filter. Evaluate carrier routing quality first, then use location as a tiebreaker among providers with comparable routing, or as a factor for jurisdiction and non-China regional latency needs.

We rebuilt it as a static Astro site. Pages are pre-rendered as HTML; JavaScript handles the theme switcher, navigation and live chat. Shipping the site this way felt like the least a hosting company could do.

A sharper design

High contrast and one Sunlight Yellow accent do most of the visual work. IBM Plex Sans handles the text, while Space Mono is reserved for prices, specs, airport codes and hostnames. Dark mode follows your system setting, with a switch in the header. The brand page has the downloadable logos and full palette.

Details for every location

Each of our 11 locations now has its own page. It names the facility, ASN, upstreams and internet exchanges, then lists every current plan with a direct cart link. Each page also points to a public Looking Glass, so you can test the network before ordering.

Products are easier to compare

The VPS range is organized into six families, from the flagship Performance line to the yearly Nano plans. Each family has a page showing its cities, specs and current prices.

The site also has dedicated sections for cPanel shared hosting in San Jose, domain registration with free DNS, and SSL certificates. The pricing page brings the whole catalog together, and the listed price is also the renewal price.

Finding things takes less work

The header now has Products and Locations menus, and the FAQ is grouped by topic. If you would rather ask someone, live chat sits in the lower-right corner.

News from V.PS

Product news, new location announcements and maintenance notes will appear here first. Shorter updates will continue on Telegram, Mastodon and Bluesky. You can also subscribe through RSS or Atom.

What stayed the same

Plans, prices, the client area and the 99.9% SLA are unchanged. Existing public URLs remain in place, so saved links should continue to work.

If a saved link does not work, tell us.