Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => ISPs => Topic started by: simoncraddock on November 27, 2014, 07:27:52 PM
-
Just an observation but if I download my favourite tv shows from the likes of 'billion uploads' it can be painfully slow. If I download from the same link however via a vpn service its twice as fast.
Anyone else noticed similar results?
-
BT say not
http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/47278/c/346
-
This might be why...
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/td-p/1420828
Some suspect there's been traffic management introduced.
It's been suggested that BT have recently introduced some additional traffic management/filtering, perhaps responding to government diktat. They must surely have comprehensive network management tracking the performance of all their core gear. Something somewhere must be dropping SYN/ACK packets like crazy. You'd have thought alarm bells would be ringing in their operations centre.
-
Ive not read the whole thread but that doesnt sound like traffic management.
No ISP in their right mind would shape http traffic that would affect opening of webpages, or stop gamers being able to connect to popular servers.
My first thought was DNS, but someone has already tried different DNS servers so it cant be that. I notice someone has posted a tracert, which implies packet loss & drops a few hops down the line. That to me suggests something wrong with the routing, for it to be so wide reaching then possibly something on the core network... but if its on the core then you'd expect other ISPs to also be having problems, so perhaps their peering?
-
Just scanned a few more pages and it seems that there's quite a few that dont appreciate the difference between a router or server that doesnt respond to ICMP and genuine dropped packets.
Its no good performing tracerts to bt.co.uk or bt.com because that is never going to answer. It doesnt mean theres something wrong with BT just that their webservers are configured to not respond to ICMP.
Same goes for several hops, most of the (20CN) RAS servers were configured to ignore ICMP ping. Dunno if its still the same these days, but the fact that hops afterwards respond ok without any loss of latency implies nothing wrong.
However this may have something to do with it. I notice a few giving their locations were in the north
From Plusnet SS
Yesterday we received notification from BT Openreach that they have declared what they refer to as an MBORC (Matter Beyond Our Reasonable Control) in certain areas of the country. This has the potential to cause fault resolution delays due to recent bouts of severe weather.
A copy of the notice is as follows:
"Parts of the UK, in particular Scotland and the north of England, were hit with severe storm conditions, including strong wind and lightning strikes, from Monday 8 December 2014 and continuing into Tuesday 9 and Wednesday 10 December 2014.
This seriously impacted Openreach's infrastructure, both above and below ground with fault intake in these areas at extremely high levels. The adverse conditions have also seriously impacted transport in the region.
Openreach is therefore declaring MBORC for repair activities, in the following area, with effect from 23:59 on 11 December 2014.
and on BT's own site - link (http://btbusiness.custhelp.com/app/service_status/?s_cid=btb_FURL_business/help/servicestatus)
Fri 12/12/2014 at 10:28
Intermittent issues when loading webpages.
We are aware of an issue, which is causing some customers to experience intermittent issues when attempting to load web pages.
We are sorry for any inconvenience caused and we are working to fix the problem
PS.
The fact that the above SS was issued this morning and people are still posting like crazy this afternoon (theres a further 5 full pages since BT issued the SS) , it may be good if someone with access to the BT forums, updates that thread so at least their users know that BT is aware of a problem.
-
Admittedly I've not read the whole thread being at work, but this as been ongoing for a couple of weeks. If I go on the Overclockers forum for example it can some evenings from home take up to a minute for the webpage to load and if I post often it times out. Whereas here at work via a Virgin connection its instant.
Issues related to the weather in the north of the UK are a separate issue.
The interesting thing I noticed as I've previously mentioned if I go onto a site that is blocked by BT using it's IP address rather than domain name it's painfully slow. Access the same site via a VPN terminating either in the UK or US and it's much faster.
-
If Keith Beddoe (part of the furniture in the BT forums) is correct, it looks like BT is redirecting all udp/53 packets to their own DNS servers.
Which means that manually specifying the IP addresses for the Google or OpenDNS servers makes no difference. All DNS queries, whatever their destination address, are redirected to BT's nameservers.
http://community.bt.com/t5/Other-Broadband-Queries/DNS-hijacking/m-p/1417341/highlight/true#M98520
Consequently, if BT's nameservers go down, or the routing or loading to them somehow fails, then the end-user has no remedy, as it seems is the case from all these complaints. Pathetic state of affairs.
Presumably BT cites "security" as the pretext for deploying this "DNS Hijacking". Not coincidentally, perhaps, it also means that, without exception, BT can harvest the address of every website we visit. Tied with geolocation data, which BT can obtain from its RADIUS logs and its CRM database, that DNS data would be very valuable for marketing.
-
if they try that on me I'll show them just what this 'end user' can do about it.
-
But that in itself is DNS hi-jacking and not free from possible abuse. I can understand wanting to protect the end user but lets face it BT don't always have the customers best interest at heart based on past record.
I'll have to test it later to see if its true.
-
hmmmmmmmm .. thats a good idea NOT! ::)
It would certainly explain why what appear to be DNS problems arent solved by specifying your own choice of DNS servers >:(
and could also explain why VPN works so much better if they have a problem with their own DNS servers.
Presumably BT cites "security" as the pretext for deploying this "DNS Hijacking".
Im not convinced that DNS Hijacking is a good enough reason for doing this. If people want to opt out and use their own DNS then they should be able too.
Despite my ISP DNS being quicker because of the slight less routing, I still use other DNS because I know that from time to time PNs DNS servers can be flaky.
I certainly agree that it is not the "correct way" to do things as " DNS requests for any Google service are intercepted before they enter the core network, and redirected down very fast trunks doesnt quite ring true. Traffic has to traverse the core to get to the BT/Google peer points anyhow. I agree that "Marketing Research " would seem to be the most obvious reason.
The fact that Keith_Beddoe disclosed that information a few weeks ago, Im surprised that no-one has put two and two together before now especially when so many users are having what appears to be obvious DNS type issues :(
-
Interesting post by Mad Penguin
http://linuxforums.org.uk/index.php?topic=11464.0
So this has been known about for a while?
Disclaimer :: this information is just my technical opinion, however the basic facts have been confirmed by BT technical support.
When you make a DNS request through BT, BT intercepts the request at packet level, by this I mean it intercepts requests made on UDP port 53. It then services those requests using their own DNS servers, and returns the result to you, while pretending to be the nameserver you were wanting to or expecting to query.
-
But that in itself is DNS hi-jacking and not free from possible abuse. I can understand wanting to protect the end user but lets face it BT don't always have the customers best interest at heart based on past record.
I'll have to test it later to see if its true.
Are you also aware of this BT Web Address (http://BT Web Address)
May also be worth having a play with those settings whilst testing to see if they are tied in or independent from DNS
http://preferences.webaddresshelp.bt.com/selfcare/
-
That really does explain why when I use my VPN Service things are so much faster at resolving.
I guess I could install BIND on my Netgear ReadyNAS and set my router to look at that rather than Google/OpenDNS for when I'm not using my VPN.
-
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/bt_infinity_working_to_fix_the_problem_after_three_days_of_outages/
Glad that I'm not with this shower..
Bodge99
-
Which shower are you with, bodge ??
-
The HH3/router Broadband led indicator did turn orange just after 12pm to-day which is quite rare and no access to broadband the HG612 was not effected it was still gathering stats on the RPI.
All I did was to turn off/on the HH3/router and broadband became available again.
-
Looks like BT/Openreach have a big problem and they have been very reluctant to admit to it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/bt_infinity_working_to_fix_the_problem_after_three_days_of_outages/
I'm cross as I've spent nearly 2 days trying to sort out my FTTC connection which has been behaving very oddly - I started investigations at my end because BT Customer Services lied to me and said there were no known FTTC network issues. There patently were.
Trawling the net I see some FTTC users suspect that these issues go back to November which BT have also been trying to deny.
Its irritating when they have problems, but these things happen and one has just to accept it. But to initially try and deny to their customers the existence of issues is inexcusable. But they will get away with it as usual.
Can you tell I'm angry?????
-
Which shower are you with, bodge ??
Zen.
Just superb...
-
Which shower are you with, bodge ??
Zen.
Just superb...
Agreed. I've had no issues so far with Zen on their part of the service/network (FTTC) since signing up to them.
-
Any ISP is 'Fantastic' if you have an in-life fault-free existence. I've met lots of EU's that say Talk-Talk are brilliant ?
-
PS .............. here are Zen's rules .......... so stop being a 'Hater'. ;) ;D
-
now i have some evidence to claim that something is auto throttling my upstream this has been going on for on for over 13 months, if you look at the TBB speed test it's clear that the US is being restricted.
-
This one is bad though. I'd be an extremely unhappy user if I were with BT.
Theres no need for this and its almost creeping back to something similar to Phorm which I was strongly against.
In fact Im not even sure if they are supposed to do this without offering consumers an opt out.
---
ETA
Post made to Facebook, because I do feel strongly about this, and its not something that they should be doing without at least giving customers an opt out
https://www.facebook.com/Kitz.co.uk/
-
Its really slow on VPN tonight no matter which termination server I use. Something is seriously wrong on BT Internets network tonight.
The reason I say BT Internet, I work within the NHS and its BT Openreach provided N3 VPN connections to Hospitals and GP Surgeries etc appear un-affected by this that I can tell tonight.
-
Many of the large corporations and businesses are unlikely to be using DSL, instead using leased lines.
Even SMEs and offices etc will use a BT Business plan. Therefore they will be on different VPs/SVLANs. I should imagine that they wouldnt dare attempt to do something like this with business users.
What BT is doing is generating additional income from their residential users. This is whom and what they are using.
http://www.barefruit.com/technology/monetisation.php
Barefruit generates highly targeted traffic for ISPs by replacing DNS and HTTP errors with relevant advertising. Operating at network level, Barefruit technology enables ISPs to resolve error traffic across the customer base with no capital outlay.
The patented relevance engine and usability-tested landing page implemented by the Barefruit solution is helpful, relevant and most importantly, provides a 'go-forward' surfing experience.
Strong user confidence in our website suggestions, resulting in high levels of page interaction, is reflected in the market-leading monetisation we achieve.
-
What BT is doing is generating additional income from their residential users. This is whom and what they are using.
http://www.barefruit.com/technology/monetisation.php
Barefruit generates highly targeted traffic for ISPs by replacing DNS and HTTP errors with relevant advertising. Operating at network level, Barefruit technology enables ISPs to resolve error traffic across the customer base with no capital outlay.
The patented relevance engine and usability-tested landing page implemented by the Barefruit solution is helpful, relevant and most importantly, provides a 'go-forward' surfing experience.
Strong user confidence in our website suggestions, resulting in high levels of page interaction, is reflected in the market-leading monetisation we achieve.
>:(
As is quite well known, I do not use a Beattie service, so there is nothing I can do in the way of making a complaint.
-
I am not savvy into the BB network after it leaves my household yes I can get my head around the DLM but this area network or backbone stuff is to complicated for me.
Lets see if I am understanding some stuff here ??? the business customers on FTTC is effecting the residential customer ?
-
As is quite well known, I do not use a Beattie service, so there is nothing I can do in the way of making a complaint.
A bit more digging and Talktalk also use barefruit, they call it "DNS enhancing service". Talktalk provide an opt out though - link (http://www.talktalk.co.uk/optout/)
-
I am not savvy into the BB network after it leaves my household yes I can get my head around the DLM but this area network or backbone stuff is to complicated for me.
Lets see if I am understanding some stuff here ??? the business customers on FTTC is effecting the residential customer ?
No.. BT are meddling with parts of the interwebs which IMHO they shouldnt be. DNS (Domain Name System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System)) is what converts the webpage url you type in your browser into the correct machine readable address so that you end up where you want to go. Think of it like a huge telephone directory for the internet.
They appear to be only doing so with the residential users and not the business accounts. They are using a third party which can interfere with the results that get returned, and which seems to be slowing down their viewing of webpages etc.
What is wrong is that they are doing this in such a way that even if the EU wants to use another DNS service (such as google or openDNS) they cant :(
-
They are using a third party which can interfere with the results that get returned, and which seems to be slowing down their viewing of webpages etc.
So that would be why my upstream is oscillating during a test because the third party is interfereing with the results :o
-
A bit more digging and Talktalk also use barefruit, they call it "DNS enhancing service". Talktalk provide an opt out though - link (http://www.talktalk.co.uk/optout/)
I have searched all through the TT "My Account" web page (logged into my account, of course ;) ) and can find no mention of a "DNS enhancing service". ???
-
It appears that Talktalk OCE's are aware of it (unlike BTs)! This is from April this year
http://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Computers-Gaming/Barefruit-co-uk-DNS-enhancing-service-formerly-Tiscali/td-p/1237525
ETA
a more up to date post a few weeks ago.
http://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Known-Service-Issues/Error-Replacement-Service/td-p/1535504
The ability to opt-out of the service isn't working as it should. Our engineers are working hard to fix the opt-out function and hope to have the issue resolved by the end of January.
-
I am not savvy into the BB network after it leaves my household yes I can get my head around the DLM but this area network or backbone stuff is to complicated for me.
Lets see if I am understanding some stuff here ??? the business customers on FTTC is effecting the residential customer ?
No.. BT are meddling with parts of the interwebs which IMHO they shouldnt be. DNS (Domain Name System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System)) is what converts the webpage url you type in your browser into the correct machine readable address so that you end up where you want to go. Think of it like a huge telephone directory for the internet.
They appear to be only doing so with the residential users and not the business accounts. They are using a third party which can interfere with the results that get returned, and which seems to be slowing down their viewing of webpages etc.
What is wrong is that they are doing this in such a way that even if the EU wants to use another DNS service (such as google or openDNS) they cant :(
is there a page for dummies one what BT are doing?
I am reading posts about poor upload speeds and now DNS redirecting?
What is actually happening?
If they are redirecting a "no reply" aka NX DNS requests to some redirect page then that is a big nono in my book, its one of the reasons I stopped using opendns years ago.
-
This has got to be more serious than 'just' DNS Hijacking. On its own, even BT (a.k.a. Inept-R-Us) could have identified and remedied that problem; a problem dating back to Dec 2013 if not earlier, and entirely of its own making.
There must be more to this Massive Service Outage. BT has had two weeks now of relentless complaints to work on. It's not just an overnight outage, nor is it regionalised - it's affecting the whole country, and it long pre-dates the fleetingly poor weather conditions in the north of England which some have blamed.
It's strange too that BT is not really disclosing anything meaningful. In fact the Beast of Newgate Street is trivialising it, and wasting everyone's time. "Support" staff in Mumbai are still going through the motions in their mindless scripts. Still telling us to turn our routers off and on, and to re-boot our PCs, and such like.
Not just the usual BT incompetence, but something much more serious then? A malicious attack on its network maybe? A sustained ambush it would prefer we never learnt about? Is The Beast staying mum "to starve the terrorist / hijacker of the oxygen of publicity?" (to quote the Wicked Witch herself.)
Without wishing to point fingers, but the Anglo-American economic warfare (http://larouchepac.com/20141125/regime-change-russia-economic-warfare-violation-nuremberg) being waged today against the Russian Federation - viz the attack on the Rouble; the economic sanctions imposed over the contrived MH17 clap-trap; the wild anti-Kremlin, anti-Putin rhetoric, and the malicious sub-profitable pricing of Brent crude to damage Russia's (huge) oil interests - won't win us any friends. Perhaps, in combination, those things might even have provoked a retaliation? In the form of a state-sponsored cyber-attack on our incumbent telco's network? Pure speculation, of course.
On BT's forum, one thread started just four days ago (Dec 8th) now fills thirty thirty-one pages of complaints. With, as far as I can see, just one official response. Some hapless BT representative (in Mumbai, no doubt) profusely thanked everyone for posting "very helpful" ping stats!
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/td-p/1420828/page/31
God Help Us All if BT is relying on suggestions from its own support forums to solve the problem! ::)
Possibly unrelated but we haven't been able to log into "My BT" (account information) on the BT website for some days now. Since December 1st (at the latest), it has reported the following error message:
"Sorry! We're not able to show your bill and usage details at the moment as the website is undergoing maintenance. Please try again later."
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNALZ86j.png&hash=4aaceb33ea1545a17f5aa5a4160d69319bec2f95)
Seams. Creaking!
Now, where's that 4G dongle gone? Time to blow the dust off it. Superfast Broadband was a nice idea while it lasted! 8)
-
It's fixed now
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/td-p/1420828/page/32
(https://community.bt.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/36762iA4BF91750A8A0D49/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1)
-
On the Community Care forums
The tech team have got back to us to say that the issue has been fixed after some faulty hardware was isolated and taken out of service. We are sorry for any issues that this caused.
So thats it for an explanation? Quite strange that what ever it was has not been fixed, repaired or replaced, but 'taken out of service'
It would be interesting to see if anyone on BT can now change their DNS.
-
Is there a way to test this as mine have always pointed to Google?
What's interesting is if it was on BT's network why were other ISP's unaffected?
This has to be something unique to BT customers only.
-
On the Community Care forums
The tech team have got back to us to say that the issue has been fixed after some faulty hardware was isolated and taken out of service. We are sorry for any issues that this caused.
So thats it for an explanation? Quite strange that what ever it was has not been fixed, repaired or replaced, but 'taken out of service'
It would be interesting to see if anyone on BT can now change their DNS.
Just switched to OpenDNS and now get a server not found on a bad address. BT dns still gives the suggestions page.
-
ok this is what I get...
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs23.postimg.org%2Frbcklhsq3%2FUntitled_1.gif&hash=ecf1126a010b88aa718a941f16f03234b4548fd4)
So it would appear I'm using OpenDNS for results.
-
Not necessarily, it just means you are not using BT’s dns.
-
is there a page for dummies one what BT are doing?
I am reading posts about poor upload speeds and now DNS redirecting?
What is actually happening?
If they are redirecting a "no reply" aka NX DNS requests to some redirect page then that is a big nono in my book, its one of the reasons I stopped using opendns years ago.
Probably the best explanation can be found at the link I posted earlier in this thread. Read the full post which explains it better, but the main bit is
When you make a DNS request through BT, BT intercepts the request at packet level, by this I mean it intercepts requests made on UDP port 53. It then services those requests using their own DNS servers, and returns the result to you, while pretending to be the nameserver you were wanting to or expecting to query.
http://linuxforums.org.uk/index.php?topic=11464.0
-
So this mornings fix appears to be that BT are still using Barefruit, but have turned off whatever 'system' it was they were using that prevented customers being able to change DNS to their own preferences.
From what you guys (pooclah & simon) are seeing.. and also the post by 19nbg71 here (https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/m-p/1422843/highlight/true#M159252) on their forums, it would appear to be a pretty sure fire bet that it was their interception of DNS which was causing the main issue.
Unfortunately the BT community forum thread is messy, which lots of 'me too' and tracerts which prove absolutely nothing. Theres also a sprinkling of customers who are possibly affected by the MSO affecting the north of the UK. Theres also people suggesting other things such as DLM. This particular issue is nothing to do with DLM or MSO's, its down to BT broadband messing with DNS.
-
To be honest, the general attitude from most in there is "yay it's working, carry on regardless" without really questioning why it happened or what they have done to resolve it. The mods and so-called experts, seem to be very pro BT which doesn't help either, so you never really get anywhere.
-
What's interesting is if it was on BT's network why were other ISP's unaffected?
This has to be something unique to BT customers only.
This is specific to BT Broadband, and most likely just their residential customers. DNS isnt done by BT Wholesale, they just provide the transport network and its the ISP who can perform such things as packet inspection and apply QoS & traffic shaping & blocking access to websites etc. They can even set rules and apply different profiles depending upon the account type.
What BT Broadband were doing was intercepting traffic on port 53 and redirecting this traffic to their own DNS servers.
Port 53 is specifically used for DNS requests. We constantly use DNS every time we try to connect to any other server. Its the part of the internet protocols which looks up kitz.co.uk and converts it into an IP address so you can connect to my server. Without DNS the internet grinds to a halt and you cant connect to other websites. If a DNS server becomes overloaded, then connection to a website becomes very slow, or times out and fails to connect.
-
is there a page for dummies one what BT are doing?
I am reading posts about poor upload speeds and now DNS redirecting?
What is actually happening?
If they are redirecting a "no reply" aka NX DNS requests to some redirect page then that is a big nono in my book, its one of the reasons I stopped using opendns years ago.
Probably the best explanation can be found at the link I posted earlier in this thread. Read the full post which explains it better, but the main bit is
When you make a DNS request through BT, BT intercepts the request at packet level, by this I mean it intercepts requests made on UDP port 53. It then services those requests using their own DNS servers, and returns the result to you, while pretending to be the nameserver you were wanting to or expecting to query.
http://linuxforums.org.uk/index.php?topic=11464.0
ok that indeed is very nasty, glad i am not on infinity now.
-
I pointed out on the BT forums that certain banned websites were banned intermittently which suggested that BT were toggling the DNS interception off and on. Almost got banned as someone complained. Anyway, the "banned" site is now fully accessible, which I assume means the DNS interception is "off".
-
I pointed out on the BT forums that certain banned websites were banned intermittently which suggested that BT were toggling the DNS interception off and on. Almost got banned as someone complained. Anyway, the "banned" site is now fully accessible, which I assume means the DNS interception is "off".
lol. Ive lost my old forum login which I used to post under years ago when I was a BT customer, but I happened to notice that my BT account is still active, and from there I could set up my forum account again.
-
I guess Im wasting my time. They dont get it.
Showing that its off NOW, doesnt mean it wasnt on for the past few days :(
-
It often feels like your talking to the wall in there, your not alone. I have suspicions that there are undercover BT staff deploying 'smoke and mirrors' when discussions point out wrong doings by BT.
-
It often feels like your talking to the wall in there,
I know what you mean SC that's why the Kitz forum is the 1st port of call for any issue's we my run into.
still even with the BT DNS fixed my US rate is just the same it has to be throttling or a problem with the TBB speed tester
-
It does seem to bounce during the test, here's mine...
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs12.postimg.org%2Fswe0ksekt%2FUntitled.jpg&hash=eb21e88a4f1f3f57748b497baeccc0adf2c52439)
I get a much smoother test using www.speedtest.net so it could just be TBB
-
Yes is does look smoother on speedtest.net.
I remember years ago the grade for my line on speedtest.net was A now it's B- this line has not changed much over 3 years it's just users line's global/national seem to be getting faster ::)
-
I have suspicions that there are undercover BT staff deploying 'smoke and mirrors' when discussions point out wrong doings by BT.
Good call, Simon! In common with most other corporations, governments and the military, BT likely uses third party PR teams, or propaganda units, for "online perception management" on public forums.
The opinions of the "common man" often hold more weight than official corporate statements. Thus forum shills play an important role for boosting trade and deflecting criticism; when dressed up as happy, smiling, satisfied customers.
Shills are great. They come dirt cheap, they work all hours God sends - vital for rapid rebuttal and "crisis management" - and best of all.... when the shill operates at arm's length to the business itself, he can make brazenly untruthful statements, without risk of damaging the corporate reputation. Something that the company could never do itself, for fear of censure.
As the nights draw in, a favourite hobby is scouring TripAdvisor for fake reviews. There are many "online consultancies" working sites like Tripadvisor, providing "perception management" or "reputation optimization" for businesses. Fake online reviewing is an entire industry in itself. Posting favourable comments about a hotel, or restaurant, or cafe, (or telco!) for a modest fee. Some of those outfits will even leave fake nasty reviews for rival businesses to damage their trade!
The real fun - it's almost an evening party game(!) - is in 'busting' these shills. Lots of little hallmarks - e.g. forensic linguistics, implausible narratives, and inappropriate posting frequencies and distributions - can all help to blow their cover. Though even when they are exposed, they tend to just fade away, only to be re-born soon afterwards under a new persona. It's like the fairground game of Whack-a-Mole!
On a more serious note: a company that uses fake favourable comments to drum up business, is likely not reputable in more critical ways. Should we trust a restaurant that relies on fake TripAdvisor reviews to unjustly boost its own trade? Since it's an unprincipled business, will it be safely managing its food hygiene, for example?
-
It's fixed now
Well it was fixed, maybe. But since this morning, there's another eight pages of complaints on the BT forums. Here's a sample:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPDEnEWw.jpg&hash=37349989db139096cc79fe42cd46bac7a85ff44d)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4UE6wja.jpg&hash=4842530aff03b119c52492f9d48bdadf4dda8df2)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHnuh9dB.jpg&hash=c2939b3cbc8205b8b3785cd8be8bd99a9a41bb6c)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwR6gm6Z.jpg&hash=d3c3a45bbdb846207bccaf0a8ff3daf4be0f597a)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxL8m7XR.jpg&hash=c7ab7bf82e3612f8b5d2b06387d80a544ca85951)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0cxt3s7.jpg&hash=dea0dae10b09be5b7c3b067fe7e2c55318e13d8f)
So maybe BT's DNS Hijacking was a red-herring. Another problem perhaps, but clearly not the major cause of these ongoing customer grievances.
The reports of web pages taking far too long to load, or where only some images on a web page are loading - e.g. not all the thumbnails showing up on an ebay listing, suggests something else altogether.
Possibly it's a problem with web proxy caching. BT used to rely on Squid for web proxy caching. Maybe it still does; if so it was/is known to be riddled with insecurities; many ways to cripple it with DDOS.
Hunch still says that BT is under cyber-attack. With the attackers perhaps targeting multiple services at BT including its nameservers, web proxy caching servers, its core routers even, to bring down its xDSL services.
Otherwise it's very hard to believe the Official Explanation for this prolonged outage. Recall, BT initially claimed that (unnamed) "faulty equipment" was the cause, but that had now been replaced, it promised. Clearly that "remedy" (if indeed it was true) still hasn't solved these problems.
A company of the size and prestige of BT shouldn't normally be felled for two weeks by "faulty equipment", nor any other predictable happening. There should be contingency plans that instantly switch to backup systems for resilience.
Of course, if the cause of these problems is beyond BT's control - the handiwork of a malicious outside body, maybe - then that might explain why it still can't solve them.
-
Its sometimes good to let your anger out and then relax and tell us what is your problem with your broadband pedro492 ?
-
Just another BT account holder and observer here. Luckily with a separate DSL service on a second line from a different provider. Pitying those without.
It's noteworthy that BT's terse explanation of the outage being due to "faulty equipment" doesn't hold water.
With that "equipment" now replaced (or so we're told) the problems are still ongoing. How so?
In fact, according to some, the problems are worse than ever...
What do you make of that, NewtronStar? If it wasn't the DNS servers after all, what is causing this massive outage??
Why won't BT tell us? What's to hide?
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4E6tbMK.jpg&hash=4eaeeac3eed782389a5b504da1bfcf75c8cc384d)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2w5B8YS.jpg&hash=dcf93c4b438b568056941d179515e3d89813a415)
-
Interesting. I have noticed some of the behaviour described here on my PlusNet ADSL connection in recent days.
The worst site (though not the only one) for me has been the BBC as I use it quite a lot.
As of a few minutes ago I have switched to Google DNS to see how that behaves.
I'm not sure if PN would be affected by the same problem though, but given various comments I've seen re authentication etc. I suspect a lot more is common with BT than most ISPs.
-
The reports of web pages taking far too long to load, or where only some images on a web page are loading - e.g. not all the thumbnails showing up on an ebay listing, suggests something else altogether.
Possibly it's a problem with web proxy caching. BT used to rely on Squid for web proxy caching. Maybe it still does; if so it was/is known to be riddled with insecurities; many ways to cripple it with DDOS.
Im not sure.
Re Web caching - I didnt think BT used it on their network. afaik AOL was the only UK ISP that used to do any sort of web caching. AOL users tended to run into difficulty on a couple of pages on my main site such as the 'rate my ISP' page because of web caching.
PN dabbled with squid many years ago for a very short period and very prompty ditched it as one massive failure.
Unlike 10 yrs ago, theres far too many dynamically generated pages for it to be of much use at an ISP level. AFAIK web caching these days is just mostly used for business/organisations/education who may be on a slowish connection and need to conserve downstream bandwidth.
Web caching doesnt save the ISP that much bandwidth where it matters most - its core bandwidth that is the most expensive so web caching is a waste of time. Transit bandwidth is comparitively cheap. They do DNS caching though.
-------
Re the problem with ebay, that could still be a DNS issue.
The structure of the ebay site means that there are going to be lots of DNS calls per page.
When you visit most websites images will be stored on the same domain. ie for this site images will likely be in a folder kitz.co.uk/images or say kitz.co.uk/adsl/images. Because you are already on the site calling for an image in a sub folder on the domain doesnt require DNS lookups.
AIUI DNS is needed though each time you call a new domain or subdomain. so that for example would be anything designated with a . (dot) rather than than the afterwards /
eg the subdomains for the forum when on the main site would require a new DNS call because they could be hosted on a different server.
forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php
wiki.kitz.co.uk/index.php
So going back to ebay, all the images are scattered all over the place and held on many different servers and locations.
Youve already looked up ebay.co.uk and the page is trying to load, but then note where all the images are coming from, theyre not held on the same domain.. but broken down into lots of subdomains on a separate domain.
http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/d/
http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/
http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/
http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d
http://s1.thcdn.com/
Surely such a page is going to be very intensive for DNS?
-
It's noteworthy that BT's terse explanation of the outage being due to "faulty equipment" doesn't hold water.
With that "equipment" now replaced (or so we're told) the problems are still ongoing.
Has it been replaced though?
The official reply on their service status says:
We were aware of an issue, which was causing some customers to experience intermittent issues when attempting to load web pages.
We have fixed the problem and apologise for any inconvenience caused.
On their forums a member of staff says (https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/m-p/1422812/highlight/true#M159229) :
The tech team have got back to us to say that the issue has been fixed after some faulty hardware was isolated and taken out of service.
We are sorry for any issues that this caused.
No where does it say anything has been replaced. Just that faulty hardware was taken out of service.
-
Interesting. I have noticed some of the behaviour described here on my PlusNet ADSL connection in recent days.
The worst site (though not the only one) for me has been the BBC as I use it quite a lot.
As of a few minutes ago I have switched to Google DNS to see how that behaves.
I'm not sure if PN would be affected by the same problem though, but given various comments I've seen re authentication etc. I suspect a lot more is common with BT than most ISPs.
I had some DNS weirdness about a couple of months or so ago. I have something running on my PC which contacts my server every 10 mins to automatically clear spam. Every morning I'd notice that there were errors logged at about 3am whereby it had been unable to contact my server. I know it wasnt my server so I added my plusnet mail as a check, and sure enough the next morning I saw that it had been unable to contact my plusnet mail. At first I thought that perhaps my internet connection had been dropping, but checking my router logs there were no resyncs nor loss of PPP. This happened practically every night for about a week.
That same week, one night I couldnt sleep and I was watching streaming TV (hoping that David Attenborough's voice would lull me to sleep) when the stream just stopped. I got up to investigate and realised that webpages wouldnt load. I tried tracerts to the bbc but they were unresolved, same with google, but I could tracert complete a trace to 8.8.8.8. I didnt get much further because suddenly things came back up. I had a quick look on the PN forums and since no one else appeared to be reporting problems I didnt bother and just changed my DNS settings in my router to google and Ive had no problems since.
Judging from the error logs DNS would usually fail each night at around 2.30 to 3am and could be down for anything up to an hour.
-
If it wasn't the DNS servers after all, what is causing this massive outage??
Why won't BT tell us? What's to hide?
I dunno what it is, but without doubt BT have had constant DNS issues this year. Co-incidentally so have Virgin Media who is the other one of the three UK ISPs that use barefruit... and one of the same three that dabbled with phorm.
Theres something going on, Theres another massive thread about DNS issues and a few smaller isolated threads where its obvious that users are resorting to VPN. Theres also a few scattered posts around with people having problems such as this (http://www.broadbandbanter.co.uk/43818-accessing-google-when-using-non-bt.html)
Its definitely not the BT network nor the core, or other ISPs would be having issues. Same with DLM.
Im not convinced its a routing issue either (a) adsl users dont seem to be impacted like fttc (b) business lines dont seem to be affected (c) VPN isnt affected.
BT broadband uses the BTw network, so lets look at what BT retail can do.
- DNS
- QoS & Traffic shaping
- Account profiles (Caps & Speed restrictions)
- Blacklist sites
- Control of ports
- Add on Services (Parental controls, firewalls, email etc)
- Puchase insufficient MSIL's (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/wbc_wbmc.htm#MSIL) (This would cause obvious congestion)[/url]
- Insufficient peer & transit points - This would also cause obvious congestion.
From the above list some can be excluded immediately. DNS, QoS & Blacklisting of sites stand out the most to me. Combine them together and you could get some interesting results. The Ellacoyas are very clever and can do some sophisticated tricks but they are a minefield to configure. It took Plusnet years to get their settings right and BT were much later entering the game with Ellacoyas.
Why are BT being so tight lipped about these issues, its obvious this year that they are being exceedingly secretive about all their DNS problems. The Ellacoyas are another area which they dont much talk about and although they dont seem to be doing as much traffic shaping these days, but they could be used to do other things such as content filtering or intercepting port 53.
The interception of port 53 I still find interesting and how it can be hidden and disguised. I dont have time to do any digging atm, but I believe that when done at the network layer it can be very difficult to spot and it can be wrapped up so that no one knows that its not really say 8.8.8.8 that is responding yet it looks like it is, even packet sniffing doesnt detect it. Didnt one of the overseas ISPs (turkey?) do something like this to block certain webpages. Lots of reading and research for someone to do if theyve nothing better to spend time on. ???
-
It often feels like your talking to the wall in there, your not alone. I have suspicions that there are undercover BT staff deploying 'smoke and mirrors' when discussions point out wrong doings by BT.
hmmm I see what you mean, Ive just seen some of your other posts, the replies arent exactly helpful are they. :no:
I really dont see why customers shouldnt expect a decent response "Why does it matter what the problem was or what the fix was. Why would you expect any company to tell you what it was?"
Basically yes I would. Ive been known to hound my ISP for info many times, and most times it is forthcoming. Ive expected it from all my ISPs and I certainly expect it from my web hosts.
When they dont it just appears like they have something to hide.
---
TBH I could have a comeback for those that p00p00ed my comments but I really cba to argue the toss with them over there, its not going to get anyone anywhere and (believe it or not :D ) I have much better things that I should be doing with my time .
-
No where does it say anything has been replaced. Just that faulty hardware was taken out of service.
Sure, I took it for granted that faulty hardware would be replaced, rather than just de-commissioned and dumped.
BT also said emphatically... "the issue has been fixed" which it hadn't, and hasn't.
There's been no acknowledgement since of the major ongoing problems.
So who do we believe? Problems happen but BT is handling this unbelievably badly.
It's the arrogance of ignoring all the complaints with not even a service update since claiming it was fixed.
Okay, we have some BT "sages" (insiders?) claiming there's nothing wrong; nothing here to see, so to speak.
But that's no substitute for an official statement.
Yet the complaints of loss-of-service continue to flood in on BT's forums and twitter feed. Again, all ignored.
And worst of all, we're none the wiser as to the real cause of it all. "Faulty hardware" is no explanation at all.
This is why BT is compared to some Soviet-era government department. It has that same arrogant,
bureaucratic mindset that treats the public (the cash-cow) with contempt.
---
EDIT: it seems the problems are back just as bad this afternoon (Sunday 14th). See below. Did they ever really resolve it? Even after BT's reassurance yesterday of it all being fixed, people were still reporting problems at 2.30am; at that time of the morning surely this can't be server- or network-loading problems:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWlFf08f.png&hash=59676063a02eb2e65c6ef359a51013d5f40036cc)
And do these ongoing complaints 'feel' like DNS problems? Were they even related to BT's unacceptable and unwanted policy of sniffing, redirecting and rewriting udp/53 traffic?
If the "faulty hardware" was related to "barefruit" (for illicitly sniffing our DNS queries) but that bad kit has now been removed, why are people still reporting problems like this?:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmWKFYJM.jpg&hash=d338f97d0506fcc6f9c48d4609b0c7d8d96c1f83)
Wider network routing problems could still be causing this. The first point of failure in trying to establish an http connection will be name resolution. But that doesn't mean the nameserver itself is to blame. So maybe BT is bluffing to disguise the true cause.
As you can tell, I just don't trust BT any more. And with many more months of our BT Infinity contract to run, this is very poor.
What with all the problems above, the out-of-action "My BT" service, and the continuous issues with the HH5a - inexplicably re-booting itself, this one is not a happy bunny.
Drawing parallels isn't that useful, but Plusnet (while below par in other ways; inexplicable network outages and hidden charging) and TalkTalk (telephone support non-existent, yet forum support was surprisingly good), neither of them ever created all of these maladies.
-
I have no idea about the DNS issues, the scale of it, the true depth of the problem etc etc ....... but just as you (Pedro) suggest there are shills at work on the BT Help-pages, I humbly suggest that there are also a damn site more trolls who love to sock-it to the large conglomerates whenever they have a chance.
It's obvious something's being worked on regarding DNS, but lets not compare it to cold-war Russia ??. ::)
-
Yup, you're right BlackSheep; smile and the world smiles with you!
Maybe not in northern France though. Where, according to this site (https://downdetector.co.uk/problems/bt-british-telecom), BT's blundering tentacles have even reached (zut alors!)
Though on a positive note, the Highlands & Islands are thankfully free of BT outages. A hidden advantage of being a fibre-free zone - no issues with outages!
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fk1SNzO5.jpg&hash=0044c9679eec82ec8753d2cd6ae0a823781c02ec)
-
@pedro
Just a note on that graph, I was looking at that last night and laughing, because as soon as you zoom, it becomes vastly inaccurate.
It should actually show main areas London, also covering Leeds, Manchester & Cardiff, with a slight scattering in the Midlands, Glasgow. It did strike me that these are practically all of the major nodes, so Im unsure how that relates to the current problem. :-\
To show you what I mean I attach a copy of the original graph[1], and one where I zoomed out[2]. If I zoom out one step further, then it covers the whole world :lol:
PS.
Even more interestingly I zoomed right in to see where that major splodge in London was coming from and its centered on Edgeware [3]. I'm thinking what the heck is at Edgeware. Then I realised isnt that near as damn it to Colindale? Those of us on a BTw connection coming from up north, will quite often see Colindale as one of the points where we come the main 21CN core to connect to our ISPs. :hmm:
-
Christ almighty. I just read their forum.
God god, there they go again with all the useless tracerts and panicing like crazy because one of the core hops is slow to respond to ICMP pings. Totally oblivious that the final hop is still completed in 12ms, which means that there is jack all wrong with the routing.
Im at a total loss for words, how the hell are BT ever going to get any serious trouble-shooting done when there's numpties filling up the thread with tracerts thinking something is wrong, when the reality is everything is fine.
What a bleeding mess... thank god Im with the ISP I am with, because someone would soon set them straight without being blasted as introducing FUD. That is one thing at least even a PN rep would have stepped in long before this point.... and told them straight.
:shoot: :wall: :shoot: :wall: :doh: :wall: :scare:
-
Yet the complaints of loss-of-service continue to flood in on BT's forums and twitter feed. Again, all ignored.
The forum is like one huge car crash :(
This is why BT is compared to some Soviet-era government department. It has that same arrogant,
bureaucratic mindset that treats the public (the cash-cow) with contempt.
To be fair some other ISPs are just as bad and some even worse. Just glad Im not with them thats all I can say or I'd be teating my hair out.
at that time of the morning surely this can't be server- or network-loading problems:
No idea, Im sat here thinking what a god-damn mess.
One over riding thing strikes me... If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, whilst it may not be a DNS_duck, it sure as hell will be related in some way to the DNS_duck.
My money is still on something DNS related, exactly what Im not sure, because they appear to be messing with the filtering of DNS traffic, which appears to be passing additional load on to their DNS servers.
Theyve recently blacklisted a pile of new domains and if they are using DNS filtering to block traffic/parental controls, then something has gone wrong and putting additional strain on the DNS servers. BT has at least 20 DNS servers and not all may be affected.
-
I'm in a hotel in York for the night and happily streaming video from my Plex server back home. So that discounts the core network and I suspect it's some form of filtering gone wrong on the down stream only.
-
I really don't see what all the fuss is and i'm using BT as SP and see no issues with slow web pages and can't find any issues apart from not living closer to the FTTC cabinet.
-
The forum is like one huge car crash :(
Yeah, dreadful forum. It's like no one owns it, it's rudderless as if there's no one in charge at home. Just one user after another reporting faults. And then there are the regulars saying that their connections are fine (so not to worry). Infuriating.
That said, a user called sjonez has just injected some good analytical skills to diagnose the issues. I see what you're saying kitz about the slow loading of a web page and missing 'page requisites' (images, etc) for ebay listings. And how that may be caused by delays in responding to DNS queries for the IP addresses of several different 'image' servers.
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/m-p/1423452/highlight/true#M159531
Though gazza02, one of the users reporting those long web-page load times, and timeouts on web pages, has just followed sjonez's advice; by doing a Performance Analysis on the Network page of the Firefox diagnostic tools (F12)....
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4og7odo.jpg&hash=c075add9aa2f0b406ef76c261f45f7c759c39fed)
Unless I'm reading the diagram wrongly, it shows some huge delays (over 80 seconds) just to load a few (smallish) images to fulfil the prerequisites for a single tumblr.com web page.
Yet other images referenced in the same web-page, and retrieved from the very same servers (e.g. 38.media.tumblr.com) are loading in reasonable time (a few hundred ms). Could that really be a DNS issue? Wouldn't the DNS lookups for those servers be cached (requiring only one look-up). If only for that one HTTP session?
Pretty weird problems these and weird that they seem to evade remedy. I do find it bizarre, and worrying that BT, of all ISPs - with in theory one of the largest and best-skilled IT teams in the UK - still hasn't got the better of it. Maybe it's just pre-Xmas blues - too many yuletide parties perhaps - everyone's rat-arsed at Beattie?!
-
a user called sjonez has just injected some good analytical skills to diagnose the issues.
Yes I noticed that just after I typed my last reply, and thought at last someone talking sense. He put paid to the ICMP garbage and also came up with the DNS subdomain issues that can occur on some very large sites such as ebay and tumblr :thumbs:
Unless I'm reading the diagram wrongly, it shows some huge delays (over 80 seconds) just to load a few (tiny) images to fulfil the request for a single tumblr.com web page.
Im reading it the same way. 1.5 mins to load a single 418 KB file :(
Wouldn't the DNS responses for those servers be cached at least during an HTTP session?
Yes youre correct, they should be. They should be stored on the local machine, how long they last depends on the TTL by the server. Ive just checked my DNS cache and it can be anything from a minute to hours. I dont use tumblr, but I went there and checked my DNS cache again.
tumblrprobes.cedexis.com
----------------------------------------
Record Name . . . . . : tumblrprobes.cedexis.com
Record Type . . . . . : 5
Time To Live . . . . : 1470
Data Length . . . . . : 8
Section . . . . . . . : Answer
CNAME Record . . . . : 2-01-2a40-0024.cdx.cedexis.net
1470 = 24.5 mins that it should remain in my local DNS cache. Im guessing that in reality it may be 30 mins by the time I'd pulled up and scrolled through everything... and strictly speaking to do a proper test I should have flushed my cache first so I didnt have a pile of rubbish in there.
Those long loading times on say 38.media.tumblr.com have got me scratching my head. Like you say once an image has been loaded, then the IP should be retained in the local machine cache. It doesnt make sense. :shrug2:
That connection is running slow, whether that is a http issue or not I dont know - 200 GET is http. Even the 'faster' ones such as 284ms for 11.42KB. In comparison, Ive pulled a 1174 KB file from tumlr in 14ms (which is about the same as my latency to london) so not sure how that works! - [Just realised it was a 304 GET which is why it was so fast.] My average is about 17ms but I also had a file also from 38.media which took 206 ms which was only 40KB.
:hmm:
-------
Oh spot the idiot (https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/m-p/1423464/highlight/true#M159538)
I also have this problem and have been on the phone to BT and used the messaging system and used @BTCare.
/snip/
After running Speedtests via BT, it things my line is fine (which it is) but realises that my wireless is running at 3MBS.
/snip/
It works great with a wire, but that defeats the point of a wireless router.
No wonder any decent chance of troubleshooting goes to pot :/
-
Interesting. I have noticed some of the behaviour described here on my PlusNet ADSL connection in recent days.
The worst site (though not the only one) for me has been the BBC as I use it quite a lot.
As of a few minutes ago I have switched to Google DNS to see how that behaves.
I'm not sure if PN would be affected by the same problem though, but given various comments I've seen re authentication etc. I suspect a lot more is common with BT than most ISPs.
I really don't know if my issues are relevant or not.
After switching to Google my symptoms changed and the slow/non-existent page loads largely stopped, but I still had problems with "some" parts (complex page content) of the BBC and others.
As of now everything is 100% OK, though I'm pretty sure it was still a bit iffy earlier this morning. ???
Router has been up for 6 days, PC for 5 hours and Google DNS since my quoted post. Weird.
-
I still had problems with "some" parts (complex page content) of the BBC and others.
The issues are definitely ongoing. That one thread of complaints on the BT forum is now up to 53 pages.
http://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Infinity-Speed-Connection/BT-Infinity-issues-for-the-last-few-days/td-p/1420828/page/53
For example, I was reading ronski's thread on avforums.com last night, where he's documenting his impressive build of a cinema room; the thread is heavy with photographs. The page had to be reloaded many times just to get all or most of the photos downloaded. This is what it looks like otherwise. Missing images all over the show. The whole thread isn't shown, but pretty much every other image in Ronski's thread was missing.
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqaOBUzF.png&hash=bb6e633228f76a7002b7f2f4e9f951be514ceac1)
Not the end of the world but it makes some sites unusable. e.g. any site that has HTML buttons using images to explain what they are (most buttons use images); when those images don't load, you have to try and guess or remember which buttons do what :-\
-
Again all tests were done and this BT ISP line seems to be unaffected from what you have described, yet I don't doubt the claims that other users are having this issue it's not the whole of the UK using BT as ISP that see this, so it could be a local problem IE BT area network :-\
If I see these issues on my line I won't be behind the door and BT won't know what hit them, yet it's best for each user to find there own tolerance of a given ISP before they wage WAR ;)
-
I really don't know if my issues are relevant or not.
But I'm beginning to think they are, assuming PlusNet are using a significant amount of resource shared with BT.
I'm sticking with Google DNS for now, but occasionally testing the default PN ones, which still consistently give problems.
Today I had another performance problem (suspect router firmware memory leak) that caused me to power cycle the (standard PN-supplied) router, which cleared it.
Just in case it was a factor I immediately checked and yes, the issues were still there with the PN DNS, but not Google's.
-
For example, I was reading ronski's thread on avforums.com last night, where he's documenting his impressive build of a cinema room; the thread is heavy with photographs. The page had to be reloaded many times just to get all or most of the photos downloaded. This is what it looks like otherwise. Missing images all over the show. The whole thread isn't shown, but pretty much every other image in Ronski's thread was missing.
Now I'm confused.
I thought you said in earlier posts that you didnt have DSL with BTinternet but with other ISP(s). Even so if you do have BTbroadband, why arent you posting your findings in that thread, I would be if it were my ISP.
Also its pretty clear that you have had so many issues with BT over the past 15-20yrs and you obviously think they are spawn of the devil.. So why on earth would you still be with them?
-
Also its pretty clear that you have had so many issues with BT over the past 15-20yrs and you obviously think they are spawn of the devil.. So why on earth would you still be with them?
I will offer up two possible reasons --
- Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
- It is easier to fix from within rather than from without.
But perhaps I am just caterwauling from the pole-top of DP1032 via which my pair descends to the bowels of the earth . . . ;)
-
Ha ha ..... I think you need some water chucking at ya, B*Cat ;) ;D ;D.
If you've had such intensely poor service from whatever business you care to mention, you simply do NOT stay with them for 15-20yrs (I think that's what was quoted ?). You'd have .... M ... U ... G tattooed on yer napper if you did. ;) ;D
-
??? For the record -- *sigh!* -- we are hooked to a Market 2 exchange (http://i.imgur.com/zkR3GLG.png) - with only two other licensed operators (OLOs) - Sky and TalkTalk - providing broadband services (in addition to The Beast itself):
It's all very simple: we have one line from TalkTalk (ADSL2+) and one from BT Retail (Infinity 1 - VDSL2). The TalkTalk service has been fine; I can't even remember the last outage with it; it's unlimited, syncs at 20Mbps, has no obvious throttling, and costs us peanuts: £8.50 a month.
That problematic second line, however, was until recently with the BT cut-out company - PlusNet (crafty accounting there, dressing up BT PlusNet as if it were an entirely separate business; just like Tesco does with its convenience store chains). Any way, since the subsidised "honeymoon" period for that PlusNet contract came to an end, and since PlusNet had its own connectivity problems - at PPP level, which they couldn't explain but reimbursed us for - and since we were getting very sub-standard VDSL2 from them - no better (despite the price) than ADSL -- an unstable 25Mbps VDSL2 service compared to 20Mbps with TalkTalk's rock-solid ADSL2+ -- we ditched PlusNet for "BT Proper" -- who at the time were offering their own sprat-to-catch-a-mackerel offering. A subsidised £10 a month, iirc. Oh, and some Sainsbury's vouchers.
To be clear, that second line had previously been with TalkTalk (Business) as well, who were first class (and very cheap). However, when FTTC was eventually rolled out here - very much a damp squib locally with patchy coverage and service - another story in itself - TalkTalk couldn't give any indication for when they, as a company, would be offering FTTC from our exchange.
Recall that BT swindles the OLOs like TalkTalk who want to provide FTTC from an exchange. BT Wholesale (or is it Openreach? The distinction gets ever more blurry and irrelevant) - any way - BT (with the connivance of Ofcom) charges the OLOs a disgraceful £3,000 for every single GEA fibre patch cable needed to link the OLO's co-lo kit in the exchange to BT's own rack.
That cable costs just 50p to buy, and about 20 seconds to install. But BT pockets £3,000 for every one of them! And since those cables are limited (conveniently) to 1Gbps capacity, the OLO is going to need many of them, to offer FTTC from every cabinet on an exchange. Consequently the OLOs are very reluctant to fork-out £3,000 time and again, for those poxy little cables, where there's a risk they won't recoup the "investment" in a reasonable time-span. And with BT slamming the OLOs with another (unlawful?) margin-squeeze on FTTC as well, it's likely the OLOs may never see a return at all from offering FTTC on Market 2 exchanges.
And that's why we didn't go with TalkTalk for VDSL2, because we couldn't.
Yet again for BT though; with the likes of TalkTalk and Sky frozen out of FTTC altogether, it's a big, fat, juicy Kerr-ching! -- the loot just keeps on flooding in for BT! Generating enough spare cash, in fact, to buy an entire cellular network, with no debt leverage whatsoever!
Just to recap. We have one ADSL2+ TalkTalk line which I'm using now to post this; and in a minute, I'll hook-up via our (pants) VDSL2 service -- provided by BT Infinity -- to post again; just as soon as the HomeHub 5a has finished rebooting itself! :'(
So, in answer to your charge --- not guilty, your honours -- we (thankfully) have *not* been BT customers for the last 10-15 years. Mostly, over that period, we've been with TalkTalk for fixed-wire telephony and xDSL, and with Three for mobile services. Does that satisfactorily answer all your questions?! Now what's your excuse for defending the indefensible?! Why are you guys in bed with The Beast?!
-
Thank you for taking the time to explain your current situation.
I, too, take a service from TalkTalk which is ADSL2+ but due to the length of the metallic pathway, is best used by setting the ATU-R (CPE) to ADSL2. I have considered taking a GEA service (supplied over VDSL2) but, currently, cannot see any benefit in me doing so.
Thinking about your problems with the VDSL2 service, have you given any thought to migrating it to A&A (on a monthly basis) and then taking up their offer to fix the circuit? (I presume they, A&A, still relish poking the Evil Empire of Newgate Street until the requisite result is obtained.)
-
Echo burakkucat suggestion with aaisp. Their bt (& talk-talk) accounts managers are in a different league.
The home1 option (100gb) makes unit use easy although downside is its a six month contract.
-
wow how this topic has drifted off course.
-
Not really sure what you're asking, nor why you're asking it?
Because in post after post you've done nothing but slate BT since you came here and people have started to wonder what your agenda is, because its over and beyond that of an aggrieved customer.
You also implied in another post that you had 2 lines, and because its pretty obvious from your IP which ISPs you use, none of which are BT. You'd also previously said 'Once bitten, twice shy' implying you'd never use BT again. Then suddenly in this thread you make out you are with BT and something starts to not add up when I can quite clearly see which 3 telcos you are posting from.
-- we ditched PlusNet for "BT Proper" -
we (thankfully) have *not* been BT customers for the last 10-15 years.
Make up your mind.
Is someone deep in the sweaty drawers of The Beast, doubting my integrity?!
There you go again with the conspiracy that anyone whom doesn't agree with you 100% must be in the pocket of BT.
You seem to think that anyone who can see both sides is a shill, yet it is not rather strange someone comes on here full of venom against 'The Beast' who doesnt even connect by them. When something starts to not add up, I have every right to say I was confused over your claims.
any way - BT charges the OLOs a disgraceful £3,000 for every single GEA fibre patch cable needed to link the OLO's kit in the exchange to BT's own rack.
Lets be clear that the cable gives them access to the OLT and numerous FTTC DSLAMS. Its £2000 for the ISP to hook their equipment up to BT's OLT that terminates the fibre from numerous DSLAMs. There's usually one OLT per exchange, although quite a lot of exchanges are now terminated in a neighbouring exchange, so the LLU provider doesnt even need to have a presence in many of the smaller exchanges. What bandwidth and backhaul they use is up to them.
If BT has invested shed loads of money - a damn site more than £2000 - installing cabs, DSLAMS and laying the fibre etc are they supposed to let a competing ISP hook up to their equipment for free? I hardly think a one-off cost of £2000 per OLT is an extortionate cost if they want access & use the BT equipment.
Consequently the OLOs are reluctant to fork-out £3,000 for a poxy little cable where there's a risk they won't recoup the "investment" in a reasonable time-span.
and its also going to cost BT quite a long time to recoup their investment too.
Why are you guys in bed with The Beast?!
No-one here is in bed with The Beast. You know who BS works for, but other than that you really need to get your facts straight before you start spouting off garbage and throwing out false accusations. You got a chip on your shoulder just because someone questioned when what you were saying didnt make sense.
Your BT doom and gloom glasses are preventing you from facing facts and you dont appear to like it when someone questions or corrects what you say.
You're talking rubbish about the MST.. Thats OFCOM. BT dont want it.. go take it up with OFCOM.. or actually European legislation. Last time they ordered the MST then it ended up with broadband being more expensive for the ISPs. The ISPs profits were at a minimum and they had no alternative but to cram more users on the centrals.. welcome to the world of caps and congested pipes. What a mess that was.
Ive already told you we discuss facts here... not conspiracies. If someone does not agree with what you are saying it does not make them a shill nor in bed with BT.
Not every one thinks the same as pedro. You've had your say. Let others have theirs without calling names and throwing false accusations.
-
You also implied in another post that you had 2 lines, and because its pretty obvious from your IP which ISPs you use, none of which are BT.* You'd also previously said 'Once bitten, twice shy' implying you'd never use BT again.
Ahh, I see how your confusion has come about. However, you're completely wrong. We are with BT for FTTC Infinity 1, and TalkTalk for ADSL2+.
It would seem that in your zeal to defend the indefensible, you've got your wires completely crossed (no pun intended).
I was talking about *never* again using BT for *mobile* services - hence the purpose in posting to a thread about BT's proposed merger/takeover of *mobile* phone operators, EE / O2.
Recall, this was recounting our experiences with BT Cellnet reneging on their "Unlimited Best Friend" tariff, some 10 or 15 years ago, which was explained at length. That was the reason for saying I'd never go with BT for (mobile) services again; from bitter experience, they can't be trusted. False advertising. Phony promises. Please do go and read again what I actually said (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php?topic=14727.msg276493#msg276493).
Here's a bit of nostalgia, these were the *actual* phones that BT Cellnet provided to us in the late 1990s/early 2000s for their "Unlimited Best Friend" tariff, offering those (not-at-all) "Unlimited" Free Calls to one landline number.
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaqIhMic.jpg&hash=159b889840e048919c1b83a45380105ea3baec2c)
----
As for VDSL2 services today, if we are all frank, we don't have really have any choices over the (ultimate) provider. That's the nature of BT's monopolistic "Vulcan death grip" on the FTTC market (as telecoms commentator, Martyn Warwick puts it).
We can either go directly with BT, or with PlusNet, another of BT's cut-out companies; which only exists to give that illusion of choice, or we can go with one of many BT resellers for FTTC. Isn't that what they call a Hobson's Choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice)? No real choice at all.
Then suddenly in this thread you make out you are with BT and something starts to not add up when I can quite clearly see which 3 telcos you are posting from.
-- we ditched PlusNet for "BT Proper" -
we (thankfully) have *not* been BT customers for the last 10-15 years.
Yup, see above. We have a BT line for VDSL2 and a TalkTalk line for ADSL2+. End of! If you're seeing something else, you're not even reading your own server logs properly.
Kitz, this is what happens when you take comments out of context; intentionally or not, it makes people look dishonest. You should be in journalism, or propaganda! Make a living out of it!
We *are* (that's present tense) deeply unimpressed BT FTTC customers, currently supplied with an Infinity 1 service, by British Telecom.
It's unstable - heavily interleaved and still lots of errors every hour; it syncs at only slightly more than our rock-solid ADSL2+ service does from TalkTalk. That's why I call it a poor service. A fair call isn't it?
Make up your mind.
I think I know which telcos we are with! I do after all pay the bills! Sounds like the "conspiracy theories" are yours rather than mine! :-X
So how can I prove it's me being honest here, and not you? Should I have to?!
What about a screenshot of our BT account page?
Or BT's IP address allocation from the modem's web page?
Or a screenshot from whatismyip.com ?
Better still, here's a screenshot of all of the above..
I fancy I'm the only honest one in all of this! It's that other lot - the covert BT cheerleaders - with their dodgy hidden agendas that are doing all the fibbing! We can only wonder why! ;)
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQuFRRry.png&hash=fc5bfa3244b062c4f46378d12cb96189bb934953)
EDIT: oops shrink tha' image!
-
It would seem that in your zeal to defend the indefensible, you've got your wires completely crossed (no pun intended).
I'm not defending the indefensible. You came on here making post after post about BT, not any other subject, just how bad BT are. You're posts became troll like when you started calling other members shills and paid BT operatives if they said anything that didn't agree with your opinion.
If you're seeing something else, you're not even reading your own server logs properly.
SMF software provides a list of the IP addresses from which you post from. This information is available is listed when I click on your profile. I dont read logs, SMF puts the information there for admin & mods as a security feature. As you've already disclosed ISPs, Im not giving anything away and every single IP up until your latest post was either Plusnet, TT (Tiscali) or Three (Hutchinson).
I can only go off the information provided by the software which showed that you most definitely were posting from Plusnet and TT. The post you made about not being able to see the images from Ronski's thread came from a TT IP.
Tonight at 10:20.39 PM is the very first time any posts from a BT IP are recorded by you. So I guess it must be SMF pulling up the wrong info. ::)
It's unstable - heavily interleaved and still lots of errors every hour; it syncs at only slightly more than our rock-solid ADSL2+ service does from TalkTalk.
.. and that is the first valid reason weve heard about your BT line. Most people come here saying I have a problem blah blah, not going all out into conspiracy mode and claiming that anyone who posts anything positive about BT is in their pockets.
I can only conclude that those 2 lines must be at separate premises/line lengths or there is a genuine line fault. If you had a line fault then moving from PN to BT isnt perhaps the best idea at least PN have more of a clue than most BT staff. AAISP would have been a better option. You need to work with people not against them.
Sounds like the "conspiracy theories" are yours rather than mine!
Good grief... you have the audacity to come here making all the accusations about shills and people being in the pockets of BT. Your comments are just plain ridiculous & troll-like written in the style & wordings suitable for the best conspiracy forums.
It was in amongst your earliest post that you started the accusations about corporate shills & paid stooges and now you got upset because I happened to say I was confused about posts you were making from TT & Plusnet IP complaining about BTs service.
Whilst you may be clever in some area's you really do need to understand that just because someone doesn't agree with you, it does not mean that they are shills. People are entitled to have differing opinions and if you post on public forums then be prepared that someone may disagree with you for reasons other than the fact they are shills or stooges.
Im happy for anyone to post facts or complain about BT or any other ISP come to that if they have a valid reason, but when someone starts going overboard only seeing one side and start finger pointing at members Im not going to idly sit by and watch someone spouting out rubbish.
-
Nope, it's you - not poring over your own server logs properly (which in itself is more than a bit obsessive*). If you knew how to interpret those logs properly you'd soon recognise that I quite often visit this forum from other connections, and have done for months. Tonight I was in the local Wetherspoons which provides free wi-fi through "The Cloud". So there's another IP address you missed in those logs, in your zeal to portray me as a liar - someone who you said wasn't a BT customer. Is it standard operating procedure to baselessly abuse contributors, calling them all dishonest? Or are those insults reserved only for those that undermine what seems like your raison d'etre for running this forum, and perhaps more importantly your professional connections outside of it? Don't bother answering. I've already drawn a conclusion to that.
* just thinking aloud here, but what else do you do with your subscriber database? It's just that you're obviously harvesting data that links every forum contributor to his IP address, email address, his online timestamps, and so on. With the assistance of associates at ISPs who have access to RADIUS logs, that data could, for example, be correlated to a specific subscriber line, and therefore the exact identity and supply address for every one here. Now thinking conspiratorially here, that data, with your help, would also allow an ISP to identify a complainant, even if they posted anonymously here. That would be very useful inside information to an ISP, wouldn't it?
-
I suggest you're being overly paranoid and that is drawing attention to yourself - a sudden arrival who has lots to say about BT.
I think you're the one with a hidden agenda TBH.
-
Let's get back to the thread topic, huh? Are BT throttling connections?
Well not officially, no, and nor were they ever. That's official, so it must be true!
But for the last two or more weeks, BT Infinity subscribers - including me - have had a pathetic experience. But not, of course, for the important opinion-formers on this and other forums, who are renowned for defending the indefensible when it comes to BT! Kitz herself even weighed in, to downplay this one. It was just a brief hiccup with BT's DNS. Remember? But switching to Google's DNS or OpenDNS, as suggested, didn't solve it either. So that theory flopped.
Kitz then ran with that alternative conspiracy theory that it was caused by BT apparently intercepting udp/53 traffic. Redirecting all DNS queries to their own nameservers, and re-writing or forging those DNS response datagrams as if they were coming from OpenDNS or Google DNS, or whoever. Except that wasn't true either - or at least BT probably *is* covertly intercepting our DNS traffic for marketing/tracking purposes - because that's the sort of weird and sinister thing it does; for a similar example from earlier, see BT & the Phorm scandal. But, importantly, that wasn't the cause of *this* outage.
Then Kitz kept plugging that barefruit.com theory. Which wasn't actually the same thing at all. Returning a web page full of adverts in an HTTP response when a DNS lookup for a website fails -- that's the barefruit.com "service" - is not the same thing as re-directing all udp/53 traffic and forging DNS response datagrams. Big difference.
*sigh*
So then we moved on to the much more likely possibility that BT has or has had a fairly drastic failure with its core routing. A major failure that was affecting lots of BT punters, across the UK from Portsmouth to Glasgow and beyond. That piece of detective work - which importantly discredited the DNS theory - came courtesy of one insightful poster to BT's own forum (of all places!) He spotted that *some* page pre-requisites - even those pre-requisites hosted on the same server - were taking ages to load. Only *some* of them. That, in a nutshell, ruled out the DNS theory; because of the use of local DNS caching - the IP address of a web server is only looked up once during a session.
Even at this stage, though, BT was still denying the problem. It was Officially Solved. Kitz meanwhile was still going with barefruit.com being to blame, and unhelpfully claiming that TalkTalk and Sky did it too (not true) so we shouldn't according to her, be pointing any finger of blame at beloved BT. Because other ISPs intercept DNS traffic, too, apparently. In fact, TalkTalk (can't comment about Sky) do not redirect and re-write udp/53 traffic to and from external nameservers. And never have done; they do redirect HTTP on DNS look-up failure of a website made to their own nameserver. But even that "service" is helpfully an opt-out.
Either way, that major BT outage was first publicly documented on or around Dec 2nd, so far as I can see; although some contributors said later that they had problems even earlier. That huge thread of complaints on the BT forum kind of dried up after page 53 (around 18 December) so that bounds the problem with some dates. Pretty bad. Is it reasonable to grumble about that? Well, judging by the 53 pages of complaints - and the repeated Official Denials of there being any problem whatsoever - and the length of time it took to actually resolve the "non-existent" problem - well, yes it would see it was entirely reasonable to complain!
And just to wind this goddamn thing up - in so far as I'm not at all interested in it since the outage does at last seem fixed - BT is still sending HTTP responses from its own webservers when there is DNS lookup failure for some other website. Dreadful..
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbOHHafl.jpg&hash=38ac11f9df82e8b15517a4c967ce4923603525d6)
-
I have obtained enough evidence to satisfy myself that BT were indeed intercepting DNS requests on Port 53, no matter which DNS servers were specified in the network settings of my PC.
I could see this easily when trying to access a certain banned website. Sometimes it would work fine, and other times I would be redirected to a statement telling me it was blocked.
However for the last few days, it has not been blocked at all and complaints on the BT Community forums have reduced to almost zero. I have taken this to indicate BT tried to introduce a faulty implementation but have abandoned it for now while they try and fix it.
I'm sure it will be back soon as certain websites should be blocked due to a court order, but right now at least one isn't.
-
But I'm beginning to think they are, assuming PlusNet are using a significant amount of resource shared with BT.
OK, I'll duck out now, for 2 reasons:
1. Some further testing has narrowed down my problem a bit and I've decided it's almost certainly NOT relevant to the BT issue that is "supposedly" ::) being discussed here.
2. Given the way this thread has been taken over I've turned on the local implementation of my "ignore" facility. :-X
-
I know this next comment is off-topic but.... I am getting mighty fed up with a certain person and their conspiracy theories and allegations that anyone who disagrees must be a troll/shill/working for BT under the covers etc etc. This forum has generally been a pleasure to be involved with and has always been courteous and friendly and it is a great shame that this certain person continues in this thread and another to carry on with their rants. How Kitz manages to keep her cool and not ban this person is beyond my understanding, if I were in her position I would have banned them long ago. I feel that this person is one of those who would be quiet as a church mouse if met in person but hiding behind a non-de-plume in a forum feels they can be as aggressive and rude as they like.
This is my last word on any topic frequented by you-know-who unless they apologise and learn some manners.
Stuart
-
Nope, it's you - not poring over your own server logs properly (which in itself is more than a bit obsessive*). If you knew how to interpret those logs properly you'd soon recognise that I quite often visit this forum from other connections, and have done for months. Tonight I was in the local Wetherspoons which provides free wi-fi through "The Cloud". So there's another IP address you missed in those logs, in your zeal to portray me as a liar - someone who you said wasn't a BT customer. Is it standard operating procedure to baselessly abuse contributors, calling them all dishonest? Or are those insults reserved only for those that undermine what seems like your raison d'etre for running this forum, and perhaps more importantly your professional connections outside of it? Don't bother answering. I've already drawn a conclusion to that.
* just thinking aloud here, but what else do you do with your subscriber database? It's just that you're obviously harvesting data that links every forum contributor to his IP address, email address, his online timestamps, and so on. With the assistance of associates at ISPs who have access to RADIUS logs, that data could, for example, be correlated to a specific subscriber line, and therefore the exact identity and supply address for every one here. Now thinking conspiratorially here, that data, with your help, would also allow an ISP to identify a complainant, even if they posted anonymously here. That would be very useful inside information to an ISP, wouldn't it?
You are wrong - Very wrong. Your post is just plain ridiculous.
I do not look at server logs ever. The information about IPs is automatically provided by any forum software that you use anywhere on the internet. SMF, phpbb, vbulletin whatever. Its right there in front of ANY forum moderators face on ANY forum you visit on the internet. Get over it. If you are that paranoid you best stay away from the Internet. Your IP is right there under any post you make on any forum anywhere.
Heres a screen shot what it looks like and just in case you dont believe me then go check out the forum software manual (http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Profile). I repeat that this is the same for whatever forum you use on the internet.
So no its not OCD, Im not checking logs and Im not harvesting data nor doing any of those things that you accused me of. Clicking on the link of your IP directly tells me which ISP you are with. The forum software told me that you had only ever posted from PN, TT and Three.
You know what the IP is there for? Its there to prevent spammers and trolls. Its also the way people who make a profession of online harassment get tracked down, you know the sort, those that repeatedly get banned from forums and end up being arrested and having all their computer equipment removed.
I had a reason to be suspicious of your activity, other members had also noticed your odd behaviour and PM'd me about it. You have to admit it looks pretty strange someone coming here guns blazing at BT and when I happened to notice that you'd never posted from a BT IP I simply said I was confused and I asked a valid question.
-
More warped thinking and lies.
Let's get back to the thread topic, huh? Are BT throttling connections?
Well not officially, no, and nor were they ever. That's official, so it must be true!
But for the last two or more weeks, BT Infinity subscribers - including me - have had a pathetic experience. But not, of course, for the important opinion-formers on this and other forums, who are renowned for defending the indefensible when it comes to BT! Kitz herself even weighed in, to downplay this one. It was just a brief hiccup with BT's DNS. Remember? But switching to Google's DNS or OpenDNS, as suggested, didn't solve it either. So that theory flopped.
Kitz then ran with that alternative conspiracy theory that it was caused by BT apparently intercepting udp/53 traffic. Redirecting all DNS queries to their own nameservers, and re-writing or forging those DNS response datagrams as if they were coming from OpenDNS or Google DNS, or whoever. Except that wasn't true either - or at least BT probably *is* covertly intercepting our DNS traffic for marketing/tracking purposes - because that's the sort of weird and sinister thing it does; for a similar example from earlier, see BT & the Phorm scandal. But, importantly, that wasn't the cause of *this* outage.
Then Kitz kept plugging that barefruit.com theory. Which wasn't actually the same thing at all. Returning a web page full of adverts in an HTTP response when a DNS lookup for a website fails -- that's the barefruit.com "service" - is not the same thing as re-directing all udp/53 traffic and forging DNS response datagrams. Big difference.
*sigh*
So then we moved on to the much more likely possibility that BT has or has had a fairly drastic failure with its core routing. A major failure that was affecting lots of BT punters, across the UK from Portsmouth to Glasgow and beyond. That piece of detective work - which importantly discredited the DNS theory - came courtesy of one insightful poster to BT's own forum (of all places!) He spotted that *some* page pre-requisites - even those pre-requisites hosted on the same server - were taking ages to load. Only *some* of them. That, in a nutshell, ruled out the DNS theory; because of the use of local DNS caching - the IP address of a web server is only looked up once during a session.
Even at this stage, though, BT was still denying the problem. It was Officially Solved. Kitz meanwhile was still going with barefruit.com being to blame, and unhelpfully claiming that TalkTalk and Sky did it too (not true) so we shouldn't according to her, be pointing any finger of blame at beloved BT. Because other ISPs intercept DNS traffic, too, apparently. In fact, TalkTalk (can't comment about Sky) do not redirect and re-write udp/53 traffic to and from external nameservers. And never have done; they do redirect HTTP on DNS look-up failure of a website made to their own nameserver. But even that "service" is helpfully an opt-out.
Either way, that major BT outage was first publicly documented on or around Dec 2nd, so far as I can see; although some contributors said later that they had problems even earlier. That huge thread of complaints on the BT forum kind of dried up after page 53 (around 18 December) so that bounds the problem with some dates. Pretty bad. Is it reasonable to grumble about that? Well, judging by the 53 pages of complaints - and the repeated Official Denials of there being any problem whatsoever - and the length of time it took to actually resolve the "non-existent" problem - well, yes it would see it was entirely reasonable to complain!
And just to wind this goddamn thing up - in so far as I'm not at all interested in it since the outage does at last seem fixed - BT is still sending HTTP responses from its own webservers when there is DNS lookup failure for some other website. Dreadful..
You have completely twisted my post here (http://here) to suit your agenda and make up some weird conspiracy theory about me. I strongly believe that what BT is doing is wrong and have voiced that.
You appear to have conveniently forgotten that it was you who first started off the DNS Hijacking theory here (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php?topic=14739.0). I stand by my assertion that I have always been against this sort of thing and also Phorm. I was one of those who strongly objected to it and my stance on DNS hijacking is exactly the same.
Re barefruit I never said it was the same thing. I said that Talktalk and Virgin use Barefruit which they do. I never said Sky used it. Stop twisting things to suit your agenda.
I also conceded that DNS wouldnt cause such issues. I also agreed with the posts made by sjones on the BT forums. I said at last someone talking sense and not spouting out rubbish about tracerts and ICMP. I even went out of my way to check DNS caching to make sure - see my post here (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php?topic=14739.60) and I said it didnt make sense.
I will stand by my assertion that its not core routing, because if it was core routing then all ISPs would be affected.
BT retail do intercept DNS on port 53, its been proven many times over and I still stand by my claim that the most likely reason is that something went wrong in how they were intercepting the traffic with say a bad rule in the ellacoyas. I am strongly against DNS interception and believe that users should be able to have a choice in which DNS server they want to use.
BT had been intercepting DNS on port 53 so that users see the barefruit advertising.
So you can stop your ridiculous theories and attempts to discredit me right now.
-
I know this next comment is off-topic but.... I am getting mighty fed up with a certain person and their conspiracy theories and allegations that anyone who disagrees must be a troll/shill/working for BT under the covers etc etc. This forum has generally been a pleasure to be involved with and has always been courteous and friendly and it is a great shame that this certain person continues in this thread and another to carry on with their rants. How Kitz manages to keep her cool and not ban this person is beyond my understanding, if I were in her position I would have banned them long ago. I feel that this person is one of those who would be quiet as a church mouse if met in person but hiding behind a non-de-plume in a forum feels they can be as aggressive and rude as they like.
This is my last word on any topic frequented by you-know-who unless they apologise and learn some manners.
Stuart
I cant win either way.
~ If I say nothing, then he will assume he's caught me out and Im too embarrased to post further, so what he says must be true.
~ If I ban him, then he will claim its because he found me out and I tried to cover up his posts. I shall leave all posts here so that people can read and draw their own conclusions.
I now know who said person is. Plenty of others have also already guessed based purely on his posting style.
I had hoped that said person could be productive once again in the adsl community and it would detract attention away from all the conspiracy theory stuff that he is involved in.
I will say this. If he ever makes threats to me or what could happen to my daughter ever again or any further false allegations, then I shall be contacting the authorities. I kept it quiet from the public last time, because I felt sorry for him because he was very sick.
I will not keep it quiet again this time - I still have the phone no's of those 2 big guys from Special Investigations/MI5/whoevertheywere who came knocking at my door completely out of the blue scaring the crap out of me. They were trying to track down someone who I'd never heard of before in my life, because of his online activities on conspiracy forum else where that was nothing to do with me.
I only found out later that he has a long record for harassment of innocent people and making up lies about them. If the threats and lies continue in any shape or form about me or any other forum member, then I will publicly show the document that I have that proves how sick he is and I will contact the police. Im not standing by whilst he turns this forum into a conspiracy theory.