DNS lookup problems ?
Simon Clubley
per lookup ?
I'm seeing this on two seperate ADSL lines, but Demon are claiming
that there isn't an issue.
Thanks,
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world
Peter Ceresole
> Is anyone seeing any problems with DNS lookups taking several seconds
> per lookup ?
Yes. It seems to be intermittent, but some DNS lookups (not all) appear
to be taking several seconds. This wasn't happening at 0700 this
morning, but it is at 1120.
Looks like one of the DNS servers is flaky?
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> > Is anyone seeing any problems with DNS lookups taking several seconds
> > per lookup ?
>
> Yes. It seems to be intermittent
And at 1200 it seems to be working okay. But it *was* flaky earlier.
--
Peter
Simon Clubley
Thanks for the feedback and for confirming that it's not just me.
Unfortunately, my current situation is that around 50-75% of the time
it's still an absolute minimum of 10 seconds for a lookup to occur.
Also, I've used ping to confirm that I am not seeing packet loss or
unusual latency times outside of DNS lookups.
Ian Jackson
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes
>On 2009-11-26, Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> > Is anyone seeing any problems with DNS lookups taking several seconds
>>> > per lookup ?
>>>
>>> Yes. It seems to be intermittent
>>
>> And at 1200 it seems to be working okay. But it *was* flaky earlier.
>
>Thanks for the feedback and for confirming that it's not just me.
>
>Unfortunately, my current situation is that around 50-75% of the time
>it's still an absolute minimum of 10 seconds for a lookup to occur.
>
>Also, I've used ping to confirm that I am not seeing packet loss or
>unusual latency times outside of DNS lookups.
>
switched back to Eternal-September.
--
Ian
Peter Ceresole
> Unfortunately, my current situation is that around 50-75% of the time
> it's still an absolute minimum of 10 seconds for a lookup to occur.
Well, having said that it's fixed, it seems to be taking maybe 5-8 secs
here, and that seems longer than usual. The trouble is that once I have
been to a site I think the address is cached, and I'm not sure how quick
to respond some of the other sites are anyway.
But you are right; there seems to be something wrong.
--
Peter
Denis McMahon
> On 2009-11-26, Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Is anyone seeing any problems with DNS lookups taking several seconds
>>>> per lookup ?
>>> Yes. It seems to be intermittent
>> And at 1200 it seems to be working okay. But it *was* flaky earlier.
>
> Thanks for the feedback and for confirming that it's not just me.
>
> Unfortunately, my current situation is that around 50-75% of the time
> it's still an absolute minimum of 10 seconds for a lookup to occur.
>
> Also, I've used ping to confirm that I am not seeing packet loss or
> unusual latency times outside of DNS lookups.
>
> Simon.
I'm seeing it too. Hi Peter, nice to see you're still about too.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
ARMOTO LTD
"Simon Clubley" <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote in
message news:heluif$2lu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
208.67.220.220
208.67.222.222
Good for back up in these cases
Peter Ceresole
> Well, having said that it's fixed, it seems to be taking maybe 5-8 secs
> here, and that seems longer than usual.
But at 1445, something seems to be fixed. Maybe speaking too soon, but
the lookup delays seem to have disappeared.
--
Peter
Simon Clubley
I can confirm that it appears to be fixed.
I hope it stays that way. :-)
Peter Ceresole
> I can confirm that it appears to be fixed.
It does look as though a machine in the DNS server cluster (I presume it
*is* a cluster?) may have been having the hiccups.
> I hope it stays that way. :-)
Well if that was the problem, it should stay fixed...
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
Still fixed for your folk? Still sluggish responses, and no responses at
all occasionally here. [17:54pm]
--
Will Gortoa
Running: OS-XP Pro/2.9GHZ processor/512Mb memory/40GB hard drive/Demon
HomeOffice 8000 through SpeedTouch ST546v6 wired router/Turnpike 6.05S mail-
news reader.
Chris Marriott
"Will Gortoa" <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:xXd+EJB$DsDL...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
>
> Still fixed for your folk? Still sluggish responses, and no responses at
> all occasionally here. [17:54pm]
>
I was having significant issues last night, but this evening (touch wood)
everything seems to be OK. I've just gone to a random selection of web sites
I've never visited before (by the "think of a company name and add 'www' to
the start and '.com' to the end" method) and all have come up immediately.
Cheers,
Chris
Peter Ceresole
> this evening (touch wood)
> everything seems to be OK.
Yup. Still okay here at 1855. There really don't seem to be the DNS
resolution pauses that I was seeing earlier.
--
Peter
Simon Clubley
>
> Still fixed for your folk? Still sluggish responses, and no responses at
> all occasionally here. [17:54pm]
>
As of about an hour ago, my affected ADSL lines were still working
just fine.
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
Hmmm... Still sucking lemons big time here! [19:27pm] : 7
Pedt
Nov 2009, Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wibbled
>In article <1j9soss.12ggmm1y76zxcN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter
>Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
>
>>Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>> I can confirm that it appears to be fixed.
>>
>>It does look as though a machine in the DNS server cluster (I presume it
>>*is* a cluster?) may have been having the hiccups.
>>
>>> I hope it stays that way. :-)
>>
>>Well if that was the problem, it should stay fixed...
>
>Still fixed for your folk? Still sluggish responses, and no responses
>at all occasionally here. [17:54pm]
>
morning now I've looked at logs but I was mainly using RDC to IP:Port
today that obviously wouldn't have a lookup problem.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
Charles Ellson
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2009-11-26, Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> > Is anyone seeing any problems with DNS lookups taking several seconds
>>> > per lookup ?
>>>
>>> Yes. It seems to be intermittent
>>
>> And at 1200 it seems to be working okay. But it *was* flaky earlier.
>
>Thanks for the feedback and for confirming that it's not just me.
>
>Unfortunately, my current situation is that around 50-75% of the time
>it's still an absolute minimum of 10 seconds for a lookup to occur.
>
>Also, I've used ping to confirm that I am not seeing packet loss or
>unusual latency times outside of DNS lookups.
>
For the last few days or so alternate lookups have been stalling from
around midnight onward so it looks like whatever is causing it has now
spread to the daylight hours.
Will Gortoa
Really poor intermittent problems again this afternoon.
Somewhat ironically, it's taken a number of tries just to get this web
site to load: http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
However, when I do, the reported download speeds are average for me:
circa 6-6.5MBs. [Although uploads are more variable: 150-450kbps]
So, what's actually happening here? There doesn't appear to be any
messages in here today [which has got me wondering if newsgroup postings
are down!], But is this a Demon an issue, a my line issue. Thoughts
appreciated. Thanks. :)
Peter Ceresole
> Really poor intermittent problems again this afternoon.
None here, that I could see.
>
> Somewhat ironically, it's taken a number of tries just to get this web
> site to load: http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
Came up within a second here.
>
> However, when I do, the reported download speeds are average for me:
> circa 6-6.5MBs. [Although uploads are more variable: 150-450kbps]
My speeds, according toe Thinkbroadband, aren't nearly that high, but I
was told at the time of the switch to 2+ that I couldn't get more than
4Mbps on this line anyway. Which has turned out to be about right.
However, upload speeds are always within just a smidgen of 400kbps.
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Really poor intermittent problems again this afternoon.
>
>None here, that I could see.
Hmmmm... It's 'kin hopeless here. Almost nothing adds immediately. And
using Flickr is hopeless. Images and/or comments are taking an age to
load.
>> Somewhat ironically, it's taken a number of tries just to get this web
>> site to load: http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
>
>Came up within a second here.
>>
>> However, when I do, the reported download speeds are average for me:
>> circa 6-6.5MBs. [Although uploads are more variable: 150-450kbps]
>
>My speeds, according toe Thinkbroadband, aren't nearly that high, but I
>was told at the time of the switch to 2+ that I couldn't get more than
>4Mbps on this line anyway. Which has turned out to be about right.
So, what's the logic that it takes, not only a while, but a few repeat
tries to actually get that sire to load, then it's actual results are
quite good?!! It doesn't take too much for computers to bemuse me, but
that has me utterly baffled. %-}
Peter Ceresole
> So, what's the logic that it takes, not only a while, but a few repeat
> tries to actually get that sire to load, then it's actual results are
> quite good?!! It doesn't take too much for computers to bemuse me, but
> that has me utterly baffled. %-}
Not so much logic as a fault. I certainly can't explain it, but that
site really did load inside a second when I tried- just tried again, at
1808, same result. Until today I'd never been there, so it's not a
cached DNS...
Everything else seems to be resolving immediately, unlike a day ago when
Simon first posted about it. But as I said, something was fixed, or at
least it looks fixed from here...
--
Peter
Paul Terry
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Really poor intermittent problems again this afternoon.
>
>Somewhat ironically, it's taken a number of tries just to get this web
>site to load: http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/
>
>However, when I do, the reported download speeds are average for me:
>circa 6-6.5MBs. [Although uploads are more variable: 150-450kbps]
>
>So, what's actually happening here? There doesn't appear to be any
>messages in here today [which has got me wondering if newsgroup
>postings are down!], But is this a Demon an issue, a my line issue.
>Thoughts appreciated. Thanks. :)
FWIW, all seems to be running well here. Possibly it's an exchange issue
(BT have been having serious problems in the Guildford area today, if
that's of any relevance).
Do you get a full and quick response if you type demon.co.uk into
http://www.checkdns.net/quickcheckdomainf.aspx ?
--
Paul Terry
Will Gortoa
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
Well, I've not used the site before, but the response was relatively
rapid - site loaded immediately. Results returned within a couple of
seconds.
HOWEVER... I thought I'd do it a couple of times, to see if the result
was repeated. Clicked on the 'Quick Check' tab, and here we are, a full
[looks at watch] 2min 45secs later and Firefox tells me it's
'Transferring data...' in the status bar. I click on Google [from the
open window here], and it loads like lightning. A click on your link
again, and again, DNS.net loads promptly. But this time, the results are
just not arriving...
And this is what Flickr [and other sites] have been behaving like for
me, for about 3 days; erratically, but often just stalling completely.
[e.g. Now that status bar for DNS.net is saying "Waiting..."]
Maddening!
Andy
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
[
>So, what's the logic that it takes, not only a while, but a few repeat
>tries to actually get that sire to load, then it's actual results are
>quite good?!! It doesn't take too much for computers to bemuse me, but
>that has me utterly baffled. %-}
>
rest of the world goes through a step that consists of several physical
boxes implementing the same logical function; these are assigned
randomly; if you happen to get one that's gone off then sodall works;
when you get a good one service is normal.
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
Paul Terry
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <rhXD+lAp...@musonix.demon.co.uk>, Paul Terry
><ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>>Do you get a full and quick response if you type demon.co.uk into
>>http://www.checkdns.net/quickcheckdomainf.aspx?
>Well, I've not used the site before, but the response was relatively
>rapid - site loaded immediately. Results returned within a couple of
>seconds.
[snip account of subsequent failures]
I suspect that this must be a local problem rather than anything
directly related to DNS. Not much help, I know! Presumably there isn't
anything obvious (such as living in Workington or changing anything on
your telephone line, such as replacing a phone)?
--
Paul Terry
Will Gortoa
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>In message <cKIlT4C0...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Will Gortoa
><|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>[
>>So, what's the logic that it takes, not only a while, but a few repeat
>>tries to actually get that sire to load, then it's actual results are
>>quite good?!! It doesn't take too much for computers to bemuse me, but
>>that has me utterly baffled. %-}
>>
>Someone suggested that part of the route from you&me-customers to the
>rest of the world goes through a step that consists of several physical
>boxes implementing the same logical function; these are assigned
>randomly; if you happen to get one that's gone off then sodall works;
>when you get a good one service is normal.
You almost make that sound like it's neither something myself nor Demon
might have any control over!
I thought that maybe my exchange was submerged or something! It's just
very frustrating, though... It's not a problem I've really encountered
much at all before, and certainly couldn't ever have been measured in
days before!
Will Gortoa
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
Well, the computer is new-ish; just about a week old. [That is, it's the
same computer, but with a new hard drive and fresh reinstall of XP.
Everything else remains the same, though.]
I live in the south-west, betwixt and between Bristol and Bath.
Just to let you know, I really appreciate your thoughts on this - and
I'm beginning to be concerned about my new set-up. [If for the only
reason that that's the only notable change that I've been in control of
which has {virtually} coincided with this issue. I wasn't actually using
the net much until a few days ago, as I've been installing software,
etc. when I've had the free time.] But I am off out now, and I'll
respond to any more questions/suggestions in the morning. :)
Andy
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
[
>You almost make that sound like it's neither something myself nor Demon
>might have any control over!
I don't think it's you (although checking over your phones won't do
harm). I've no idea if it's Demon, B T Outrage, or who.
Will Gortoa
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>In message <ApOS7ZDuWCELFwU$@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Will Gortoa
><|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>[
>>You almost make that sound like it's neither something myself nor
>>Demon might have any control over!
>
>I don't think it's you (although checking over your phones won't do
>harm). I've no idea if it's Demon, B T Outrage, or who.
Still doing it this morning. I'll see if anyone comes up with any other
thoughts/suggestions here today, or... {Gulp} ...I might have to phone
the HELP! Desk.
--
Will Gortoa
Running: OS-XP Pro/2.9GHZ processor/2GB memory/160GB hard drive/Demon
HomeOffice 2+ through SpeedTouch ST546v6 wired router/Turnpike 6.05S mail-
news reader.
Peter Ceresole
> Still doing it this morning. I'll see if anyone comes up with any other
> thoughts/suggestions here today, or... {Gulp} ...I might have to phone
> the HELP! Desk.
Just as a data point; this morning I've accessed a site that I have
never accessed before
<http://www.chamonix.net/english/webcam/chamcam.htm> as well as several
sites that I access every day, including the BBC News web site.
All resolved as quickly as they always do.
I know that people here like to make jokes about the help desk, but the
few times I have needed to call them recently, they did a good job.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> >But you are right; there seems to be something wrong.
>
> ...why on Earth didn't you make a call to the helpdesk, get straight
> through and get it fixed on everyone else's behalf?
Don't be bloody stupid.
It was a small intermittent problem. I thought that if I waited a short
while, it would be sorted. And it was.
What's your problem? Because you clearly have one...
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Still doing it this morning. I'll see if anyone comes up with any other
>> thoughts/suggestions here today, or... {Gulp} ...I might have to phone
>> the HELP! Desk.
>
>I know that people here like to make jokes about the help desk, but the
>few times I have needed to call them recently, they did a good job.
Well, there wasn't much action in here this morning. So, I've dived
in...
The person on the other end [while annoyingly quietly spoken!] seemed
efficient and confident. She said she could 'see' that I've been
suffering from intermittent connectivity - albeit my habit of turning
the router off when I'm not home/at night, clearly doesn't currently
help that diagnostic angle. [Those following my tale of woe may've
noticed I replaced my hard disk - which also resulted in the line being
entirely broadband dead for circa one week.]
Demon suggestions...
Turning the router off/on again [inc. disconnecting the actual line
(manually) from the router]. No apparent benefit. [Not a surprise. Given
that's effectively what I've been doing anyway!]
Leave router on continuously now. [After week of disconnectivity, and
intermittent connectivity - me manually turning it off/on - it,
paraphrasing; "...might need an extended connection to reset the line
resilience." [Does that sound logical/probable?]
I've now taken the face plate off the BT socket to use the 'Test Socket'
inside - for them to continue monitoring.
I've replaced the two microfilters. [On the two phones sharing the
line.]
Watch this space...
Stephen Wolstenholme
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Leave router on continuously now. [After week of disconnectivity, and
>intermittent connectivity - me manually turning it off/on - it,
>paraphrasing; "...might need an extended connection to reset the line
>resilience." [Does that sound logical/probable?]
That sounds unlikely to me as I switch everything off every night
including the router. I have not had connectivity or DNS problems for
weeks. There are two PC's using the router and both are flying within
a two minutes of switch on.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Big Les Wade
>Well, there wasn't much action in here this morning. So, I've dived
>in...
>
>The person on the other end [while annoyingly quietly spoken!] seemed
>efficient and confident. She said she could 'see' that I've been
>suffering from intermittent connectivity - albeit my habit of turning
>the router off when I'm not home/at night, clearly doesn't currently
>help that diagnostic angle. [Those following my tale of woe may've
>noticed I replaced my hard disk - which also resulted in the line being
>entirely broadband dead for circa one week.]
>
>Demon suggestions...
>
>Turning the router off/on again [inc. disconnecting the actual line
>(manually) from the router]. No apparent benefit. [Not a surprise.
>Given that's effectively what I've been doing anyway!]
>
>Leave router on continuously now. [After week of disconnectivity, and
>intermittent connectivity - me manually turning it off/on - it,
>paraphrasing; "...might need an extended connection to reset the line
>resilience." [Does that sound logical/probable?]
>
>I've now taken the face plate off the BT socket to use the 'Test
>Socket' inside - for them to continue monitoring.
>
>I've replaced the two microfilters. [On the two phones sharing the
>line.]
Just to butt in ... this DNS lookup failure was *exactly* the failure
mode that hit my connection after Demon moved me to ADSL2+. In my case
it was crippling, with about 60 per cent of lookups timing out with no
response, about 20 per cent taking 20-30 seconds to get a response, and
maybe 20 per cent succeeding immediately. (Oddly, they were the same 20
pr cent all the time.)
The Demon helpdesk suggested all the same stuff as above, and in
addition changing my DNS server settings, pinging and tracerouting
remote servers, etc. But nothing helped, and ultimately I had to change
to a new supplier.
--
Les
Will Gortoa
<L...@nowhere.com>
My situation is a little less than 60%, but everything you've said there
otherwise reflects my experience of the past 3-4 days - even your
oddity.
>The Demon helpdesk suggested all the same stuff as above, and in
>addition changing my DNS server settings, pinging and tracerouting
>remote servers, etc. But nothing helped, and ultimately I had to change
>to a new supplier.
Hmmmm... Well, I hope it doesn't come to that. Notwithstanding the
generally excellent/reliable service I've received from Demon in the
past decade, adapting/changing all my email addresses [outside of
Turnpike] would, chiefly, be an absolute nightmare! [i.e. *All* my email
addresses utilise the potentially infinite number of address options
that this account/Turnpike allows. e.g. Variations on
anya...@xxxx.demon.co.uk.]
Will Gortoa
Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
I've always done this, too - ever since having a router [with regular
broadband and 2+] - with no previous issues whatsoever.
ali1234
Demon's network. For example, OpenDNS. Their nameservers are at
208.67.222.222
and 208.67.220.220, and they are usually quite reliable compared with
Demon. If that doesn't work, it's probably a connectivity issue.
Peter Ceresole
I have two machines; one has just Demon's DNS servers listed, the other
has 4.2.2.1 added on.
It has never made any difference; both machines behave exactly the same.
And this has been true for the past several days.
When you say they are reliable compared with Demon, what do you mean?
Because from here Demon's DNS service has been very reliable.
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
>Do you get a full and quick response if you type demon.co.uk into
>http://www.checkdns.net/quickcheckdomainf.aspx ?
A certain irony since I first tried this [and it worked immediately
first time]... Aside from loading the original page/link itself, it's
not returned any results since, in about 10+ tries!!
--
Will Gortoa
Running: OS-XP Pro/2.9GHZ processor/2GB memory/160GB hard drive/Demon
HomeOffice 2+ through SpeedTouch ST546v6 wired router/Turnpike 6.05S mail-
news reader.
ali1234
> I have two machines; one has just Demon's DNS servers listed, the other
> has 4.2.2.1 added on.
> It has never made any difference; both machines behave exactly the same.
> And this has been true for the past several days.
> When you say they are reliable compared with Demon, what do you mean?
> Because from here Demon's DNS service has been very reliable.
If you do not have a problem accessing Demon's DNS I would not expect
you to see any improvement by using OpenDNS.
If however, you are having trouble with Demon's DNS servers, one step
in diagnosing the problem is to try another DNS service.
Note that it isn't enough to add extra DNS to the existing ones,
because your computer will still attempt to use all available DNS
servers, waiting for one to time out before trying the next. So if
Demon's DNS is down, it will wait for the lookup to expire before
trying the 4.2.2.1 server.
Peter Ceresole
> Note that it isn't enough to add extra DNS to the existing ones,
> because your computer will still attempt to use all available DNS
> servers, waiting for one to time out before trying the next. So if
> Demon's DNS is down, it will wait for the lookup to expire before
> trying the 4.2.2.1 server.
Yes, I know that. And 4.2.2.1 is last on my list. This was why I
mentioned that I have another machine, connected to the same router,
which only has Demon's DNS server addresses, and it was working the same
last week. Which seems to indicate to me that it wasn't Demon's DNS
servers that were causing the problem.
The machine with the 4.2.2.1 address is four years old, and as I
remember it there was a problem around that time, short lived, with DNS
servers. I just never removed that address on that machine.
--
Peter
James Coupe
>Yes, I know that. And 4.2.2.1 is last on my list. This was why I
>mentioned that I have another machine, connected to the same router,
>which only has Demon's DNS server addresses, and it was working the same
>last week. Which seems to indicate to me that it wasn't Demon's DNS
>servers that were causing the problem.
What DNS caching is being performed by that machine's OS (or other
software)? It's entirely possible that during a DNS hiccup, a local
cache of the sites you regularly visit/machines you connect to can
prevent you from seeing any problems.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Peter Ceresole
> What DNS caching is being performed by that machine's OS (or other
> software)? It's entirely possible that during a DNS hiccup, a local
> cache of the sites you regularly visit/machines you connect to can
> prevent you from seeing any problems.
Yes, this is why I specifically tried sites I hadn't visited before- I
mentioned that.
Last week, for the few hours for which there was a problem, there
appeared to be intermittent resolution delays on both sites I visit
regularly, such as http://news.bbc.co.uk and those I was visiting for
the first time ever, or for the first time in months such as
<http://blueballfixed.ytmnd.com/> Delays in resolving addresses were
around five to ten seconds- never minutes.
Because the delays were intermittent all I could actually see was that
something appeared to be wrong. By the afternoon, any delays had
disappeared, and they haven't returned.
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
<b7f04073-53bd-4779...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
ali1234 <a.j.b...@gmail.com>
>On Nov 29, 12:07�pm, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>
>> I have two machines; one has just Demon's DNS servers listed, the other
>> has 4.2.2.1 added on.
>
>> It has never made any difference; both machines behave exactly the same.
>> And this has been true for the past several days.
>
>> When you say they are reliable compared with Demon, what do you mean?
>> Because from here Demon's DNS service has been very reliable.
>
>If you do not have a problem accessing Demon's DNS I would not expect
>you to see any improvement by using OpenDNS.
>
>If however, you are having trouble with Demon's DNS servers, one step
>in diagnosing the problem is to try another DNS service.
I'd really like to have this option up my sleeve - after completing this
initial 'don't-touch-anything-while-monitor-the-situation' with Demon.
However, I've never done this before... So, anyone care to walk me
through this procedure on the ST544 router, so I don't feck it up!! [I
want to take things out of the equation and not add to it! ;-)]
TIA.
Peter Ceresole
> However, I've never done this before... So, anyone care to walk me
> through this procedure on the ST544 router, so I don't feck it up!! [I
> want to take things out of the equation and not add to it! ;-)]
It's most likely in your computer's network settings rather than in your
router- that's certainly the way it is here.
Because I'm using a Mac (with a Netgear DG834N) I can't walk you through
the process, but somewhere in your network settings there should be a
space for the DNS server addresses, which in the case of Demon are:
158.152.1.58
158.152.1.43
To that list, at the bottom add:
4.2.2.1
And apply it or save it, whichever way Windows needs it.
That means that if Demon's DNS servers don't respond, it will (after a
pause to check them) use 4.2.2.1
But, as I say, from here Demon's DNS servers seem to be working just
fine at the moment- as they practically aways do.
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>However, I've never done this before... So, anyone care to walk me
>through this procedure on the ST544 router, so I don't feck it up!! [I
>want to take things out of the equation and not add to it! ;-)]
*ST546* router.
Apologies!
See. There's little hope for me, really. I can't even type straight. :)
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
Well, as I say, I'm trying to potentially take something out of the
equation rather than muddy the waters, if possible. So, will this
actually achieve anything?
I guess what I'm subsequently asking is... If the DNS look-up is an
issue here [even when no one else is reporting such an issue], will this
tweak clarify anything of note. If yes, what?
Peter Ceresole
> Well, as I say, I'm trying to potentially take something out of the
> equation rather than muddy the waters, if possible. So, will this
> actually achieve anything?
The real mystery is why it should suddenly change for you. The Demon DNS
servers are, from here, definitely working. Obviously the first thing to
do is to check that your settings do include those addresses.
But as I don't use either Windows or your your type of router, I can't
say where you should look, or where your router might store the DNS
addresses.
Having said that, when I said that I didn't have the DNS addresses in my
router, I realise that I was wrong- I apologise.
I've always changed the addresses in the network settings on my Mac, and
forgot that I had entered them in the Basic Settings of my router. It
looks like maybe they should be entered in both places.
--
Peter
John Hall
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> However, I've never done this before... So, anyone care to walk me
>> through this procedure on the ST544 router, so I don't feck it up!! [I
>> want to take things out of the equation and not add to it! ;-)]
>
>It's most likely in your computer's network settings rather than in your
>router- that's certainly the way it is here.
The Speedtouch routers have DNS addresses configured in. I've always
assumed that they would take precedence over the addresses configured
within the computer itself, as otherwise there wouldn't seem to be any
point to them.
I've never tried changing them, but one possible method would be to edit
the Speedtouch ini file (after creating a back-up in case of accidents),
then telling the router to load the new ini file. It might be necessary
to reboot the router for the changes to take effect - I don't know.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
Charles Ellson
Try them between midnight and about 06.00 .
Peter Ceresole
> >But, as I say, from here Demon's DNS servers seem to be working just
> >fine at the moment- as they practically aways do.
> >
> Try them between midnight and about 06.00 .
I often do. Between 0300 and 0500 (my preferred insomnia time) they have
always worked fine.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> I've always changed the addresses in the network settings on my Mac, and
> forgot that I had entered them in the Basic Settings of my router. It
> looks like maybe they should be entered in both places.
Okay; last night, someone posted an address
<http://www.thechosen5.co.uk/> which wouldn't resolve using Demon's DNS
servers- and wouldn't resolve on my 'plain vanilla DNS settings' Mac.
I added 4.2.2.1 to the end of the DNS servers list *and restarted the
Mac*. I didn't touch the router settings.
It worked.
So adding 4.2.2.1 to just the DNS server address list on the Mac did the
trick in this case. No need to touch the router settings.
A warning; it takes several seconds to resolve the address, because it
is timing out on the two Demon DNS servers before it tries the extra
address in the list. But it does work and should be a valid test.
After the first connection, it caches the result on the Mac here, and
subsequent connections are quick. But that cache appears to expire
overnight.
There's a good explanation of what might be going on in the 'cant see
this website' thread in d.s. Have a look at Message-ID:
<592dnWXJcZGof4jW...@giganews.com> from Denis McMahon.
--
Peter
John Hall
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Okay; last night, someone posted an address
><http://www.thechosen5.co.uk/> which wouldn't resolve using Demon's DNS
>servers- and wouldn't resolve on my 'plain vanilla DNS settings' Mac.
It loads fine for me this morning (I didn't see this thread in time to
try it yesterday), and I too am using the "plain vanilla DNS settings"
of 158.152.1.58 and 158.152.1.43. (Browser is IE8, if it's relevant.)
Denis McMahon
> In article <1ja3at3.1mr3zrnwmb5doN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Okay; last night, someone posted an address
>> <http://www.thechosen5.co.uk/> which wouldn't resolve using Demon's DNS
>> servers- and wouldn't resolve on my 'plain vanilla DNS settings' Mac.
>
> It loads fine for me this morning (I didn't see this thread in time to
> try it yesterday), and I too am using the "plain vanilla DNS settings"
> of 158.152.1.58 and 158.152.1.43. (Browser is IE8, if it's relevant.)
Follows, I guess the stale entries in demon's cache finally expired.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> There's a good explanation of what might be going on in the 'cant see
> this website' thread in d.s. Have a look at Message-ID:
> <592dnWXJcZGof4jW...@giganews.com> from Denis McMahon.
Denis McMahon wishes to point out that he isn't a networking expert, and
what he posted is mostly conjecture built on experience rather than
formal training.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Peter Ceresole
> Denis McMahon wishes to point out that he isn't a networking expert, and
> what he posted is mostly conjecture built on experience rather than
> formal training.
Yeah well, it was still a good, plausible explanation, and looks as
though it might be right. Which is a nice bonus.
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article <1ja1vkl.119fuvtu9lhl2N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> However, I've never done this before... So, anyone care to walk me
>>> through this procedure on the ST544 router, so I don't feck it up!! [I
>>> want to take things out of the equation and not add to it! ;-)]
>>
>>It's most likely in your computer's network settings rather than in your
>>router- that's certainly the way it is here.
>
>The Speedtouch routers have DNS addresses configured in. I've always
>assumed that they would take precedence over the addresses configured
>within the computer itself, as otherwise there wouldn't seem to be any
>point to them.
>
>I've never tried changing them, but one possible method would be to edit
>the Speedtouch ini file (after creating a back-up in case of accidents),
>then telling the router to load the new ini file. It might be necessary
>to reboot the router for the changes to take effect - I don't know.
See my other reply, John. I did look into this, but quickly got lost
when faced with all the coding and bailed out! :)
Will Gortoa
>Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've always changed the addresses in the network settings on my Mac, and
>> forgot that I had entered them in the Basic Settings of my router. It
>> looks like maybe they should be entered in both places.
>
>Okay; last night, someone posted an address
><http://www.thechosen5.co.uk/> which wouldn't resolve using Demon's DNS
>servers- and wouldn't resolve on my 'plain vanilla DNS settings' Mac.
Yeah, I saw that, and the issue was the same here. However, I presume
that was all about resolving access to *one* web site - unless I missed
the point amongst the technical conversation/information?
Whereas I was having problems with multiple sites, as well as sites
[like Flickr] going to sleep while I'm actually using them! [e.g.
Following links from within the site.]
>I added 4.2.2.1 to the end of the DNS servers list *and restarted the
>Mac*. I didn't touch the router settings.
>
>It worked.
>
>So adding 4.2.2.1 to just the DNS server address list on the Mac did the
>trick in this case. No need to touch the router settings.
Well, after following this thread [and the other], and John Hall's
subsequent comment [Thanks, too! :)] I duly wandered into my network
connection settings and - following the reinstall of XP on this new hard
disk a couple of weeks ago - I wasn't aware of this situation but the
DNS settings [presumably by default] had been set at 'Obtain DNS server
address automatically'. [I'm 99% certain they were manually inserted
prior to this.] So, I've now added the Demon DNS server addresses into
the two vacant slots, and also added 4.2.2.1 in the advanced settings.
[i.e. I now have all three DNS settings set.]
The past couple of days I couldn't get a response from
http://www.thechosen5.co.uk/ but, after a time of notable pause for
thinking about it with the new settings, as per...
>A warning; it takes several seconds to resolve the address, because it
>is timing out on the two Demon DNS servers before it tries the extra
>address in the list. But it does work and should be a valid test.
>
>After the first connection, it caches the result on the Mac here, and
>subsequent connections are quick.
...same results.
So, it's early hours/days. But there does already seem to be a notable
improvement in some previously lapsing web sites loading times, too,
since making these changes.
Peter Ceresole
> I wasn't aware of this situation but the
> DNS settings [presumably by default] had been set at 'Obtain DNS server
> address automatically'. [I'm 99% certain they were manually inserted
> prior to this.] So, I've now added the Demon DNS server addresses into
> the two vacant slots, and also added 4.2.2.1 in the advanced settings.
I think you've cracked it there. Certainly 'Obtain DNS server address
automatically' isn't the way to go with Demon.
--
Peter
John Hall
Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Well, after following this thread [and the other], and John Hall's
>subsequent comment [Thanks, too! :)] I duly wandered into my network
>connection settings and - following the reinstall of XP on this new
>hard disk a couple of weeks ago - I wasn't aware of this situation but
>the DNS settings [presumably by default] had been set at 'Obtain DNS
>server address automatically'.
I've just checked my own network settings, and I too have 'Obtain DNS
server address automatically' set, without any apparent ill effects.
John Hall
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes:
>In article <1ja1vkl.119fuvtu9lhl2N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> However, I've never done this before... So, anyone care to walk me
>>> through this procedure on the ST544 router, so I don't feck it up!! [I
>>> want to take things out of the equation and not add to it! ;-)]
>>
>>It's most likely in your computer's network settings rather than in your
>>router- that's certainly the way it is here.
>
>The Speedtouch routers have DNS addresses configured in.
> I've always
>assumed that they would take precedence over the addresses configured
>within the computer itself, as otherwise there wouldn't seem to be any
>point to them.
I think that by default the router is configured to act as a DHCP
server, which AIUI means that it will supply the DNS addresses if the PC
network settings are set for DNS addresses to be "automatic".
>
>I've never tried changing them, but one possible method would be to edit
>the Speedtouch ini file (after creating a back-up in case of accidents),
>then telling the router to load the new ini file. It might be necessary
>to reboot the router for the changes to take effect - I don't know.
I've now found this, showing how to configure a Speedtouch to use
OpenDNS:
http://network.wiki.xs4all.nl/index.php?title=SpeedTouch_and_Open_DNS
Peter Ceresole
> I've just checked my own network settings, and I too have 'Obtain DNS
> server address automatically' set, without any apparent ill effects.
Presumably because the PC was getting them from the router?
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> So, it's early hours/days. But there does already seem to be a notable
> improvement in some previously lapsing web sites loading times, too,
> since making these changes.
So Will, does this mean that from generally not working, your web setup
is now okay? I do hope so.
--
Peter
Denis McMahon
In which case, you might as well set any 3 of the root servers.
Note, however, that this isn't good netizenry! The root servers are not
intended for end user dns lookups.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> In article <zk7OoAH9...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
> Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Well, after following this thread [and the other], and John Hall's
>> subsequent comment [Thanks, too! :)] I duly wandered into my network
>> connection settings and - following the reinstall of XP on this new
>> hard disk a couple of weeks ago - I wasn't aware of this situation but
>> the DNS settings [presumably by default] had been set at 'Obtain DNS
>> server address automatically'.
>
> I've just checked my own network settings, and I too have 'Obtain DNS
> server address automatically' set, without any apparent ill effects.
I think it boils down to which server you pick up at demon and whether
it has, for some reason, a stale entry for the lookup you're trying to make.
Thinks what happens
You ask for a web page http://x/filename
Your pc checks it's dns cache for host x
Your pc asks the router for ip of host x
your router checks it's dns cache for host x
your router asks demon for ip of host x
demon does lookups - What lookups demon does and in what order would be
conjecture. Demon might have a local copy of the root hints file, or it
might go to *.gtld-servers.net, or it might go and look for the dns
servers to use from the whois record. I guess it starts with its own
cache, and then goes to look elswhere. If at some point the demon server
gets pointed for some reason at a nonresponding server, it returns servfail.
I suspect that this demon either had the same pointers to the
chosen5.co.uk stored locally as the source for that domain, or the path
it went down to find the ip led to those servers, at which point the
servfail was returned.
I'm pretty sure that the problem is (or was) with the hosting provider
or their upstream, and not demon. Demon was merely a victim of the
broken dns, because their lookup method was finding the broken data.
Note that when I bypassed demon's servers I was able to find good or
broken servers depending on how and where I started looking.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> I think that by default the router is configured to act as a DHCP
> server, which AIUI means that it will supply the DNS addresses if the PC
> network settings are set for DNS addresses to be "automatic".
Yes, but where is the router getting them from?
Normally the router is set to act as a dhcp server to the domestic side
lan, and as a dhcp client to the demon side wan. If so, it probably
picks up dns server ips from the dhcp exchange with demon when it logs
in to their network.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Kate Brown
Have been following this with interest, but cannot see where to add
extra DNS lookup addresses in the router - that is, on the setup page
there appears to be an option to put in up to 4 DNS and 1 WINS
addresses, but these are all blank and greyed out because 'act as a
DHCP' server is ticked. The router is a Linksys WAG54GS. I looked then
in my computer settings, but both in Connect and in the TCP/IP settings
there is only the option to add two DNS lookups and both the Demon
addresses are entered.
--
Kate B
PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally
John Hall
That might explain why, when we had that Sunday some months ago when
Demon went do-lally, the router was showing incorrect IP addresses for
the DNS severs as well as for my own machine, even though all three
addresses are configured into it.
John Hall
Dave Baxter
elv...@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Denis McMahon wrote
> >John Hall wrote:
> >
> >> I think that by default the router is configured to act as a DHCP
> >> server, which AIUI means that it will supply the DNS addresses if the PC
> >> network settings are set for DNS addresses to be "automatic".
> >
> >Yes, but where is the router getting them from?
> >
> >Normally the router is set to act as a dhcp server to the domestic side
> >lan, and as a dhcp client to the demon side wan. If so, it probably
> >picks up dns server ips from the dhcp exchange with demon when it logs
> >in to their network.
> >
>
> Have been following this with interest, but cannot see where to add
> extra DNS lookup addresses in the router - that is, on the setup page
> there appears to be an option to put in up to 4 DNS and 1 WINS
> addresses, but these are all blank and greyed out because 'act as a
> DHCP' server is ticked. The router is a Linksys WAG54GS. I looked then
> in my computer settings, but both in Connect and in the TCP/IP settings
> there is only the option to add two DNS lookups and both the Demon
> addresses are entered.
I suspect that's where you need to put your own choices of external DNS
server addresses, then the router (and your whole LAN) will then use
them, not Demon's.
Dave B.
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
Initial results are significantly improved here. [That is, I haven't
been using the Internet excessively since doing this - but the time I've
spent here has resulted in quicker response times and minimal
time-outs.] I'll use it more over the weekend. So, I'll pop back in with
a further update.
Will Gortoa
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>I've now found this, showing how to configure a Speedtouch to use
>OpenDNS:
>
>http://network.wiki.xs4all.nl/index.php?title=SpeedTouch_and_Open_DNS
Thanks, John. Bookmarked under my proverbial hat. :)
Will Gortoa
<elv...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>Have been following this with interest, but cannot see where to add
>extra DNS lookup addresses in the router - that is, on the setup page
>there appears to be an option to put in up to 4 DNS and 1 WINS
>addresses, but these are all blank and greyed out because 'act as a
>DHCP' server is ticked. The router is a Linksys WAG54GS. I looked then
>in my computer settings, but both in Connect and in the TCP/IP settings
>there is only the option to add two DNS lookups and both the Demon
>addresses are entered.
Are you using XP, Kate?
If you are [or maybe even if you're not?], there are 2 options, as you
found, but you'll also see an 'Advanced' button directly below those 2
options. Go in there, select DNS tab, and you can then add more. [When I
did it, the two from the previous page were already in that list by
default, and you simply add 4.2.2.1 - if that's your intention, too.]
Kate Brown
>In article <0QjYP2qw...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Kate Brown
><elv...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>
>>Have been following this with interest, but cannot see where to add
>>extra DNS lookup addresses in the router - that is, on the setup page
>>there appears to be an option to put in up to 4 DNS and 1 WINS
>>addresses, but these are all blank and greyed out because 'act as a
>>DHCP' server is ticked. The router is a Linksys WAG54GS. I looked
>>then in my computer settings, but both in Connect and in the TCP/IP
>>settings there is only the option to add two DNS lookups and both the
>>Demon addresses are entered.
>
>Are you using XP, Kate?
>
>If you are [or maybe even if you're not?], there are 2 options, as you
>found, but you'll also see an 'Advanced' button directly below those 2
>options. Go in there, select DNS tab, and you can then add more. [When
>I did it, the two from the previous page were already in that list by
>default, and you simply add 4.2.2.1 - if that's your intention, too.]
>
here already! The 'add' button is greyed out. Running XP Pro Sp3.
Andy
<elv...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
[
>I'd like to, but there's no option to add another address - I had
>looked here already! The 'add' button is greyed out. Running XP Pro Sp3.
>
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
Kate Brown
>In message <OIFWpf9o...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Kate Brown
><elv...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>[
>>I'd like to, but there's no option to add another address - I had
>>looked here already! The 'add' button is greyed out. Running XP Pro Sp3.
>>
>Are you running with full Admin privileges? If not try that.
Yup.
hugh
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In article <zk7OoAH9...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
> Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Well, after following this thread [and the other], and John Hall's
>>subsequent comment [Thanks, too! :)] I duly wandered into my network
>>connection settings and - following the reinstall of XP on this new
>>hard disk a couple of weeks ago - I wasn't aware of this situation but
>>the DNS settings [presumably by default] had been set at 'Obtain DNS
>>server address automatically'.
>
>I've just checked my own network settings, and I too have 'Obtain DNS
>server address automatically' set, without any apparent ill effects.
That option is not ticked.
--
hugh
It may be more complicated but is it better?
Will Gortoa
<elv...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Will Gortoa wrote
Weirds. I was going to suggest the admin-thing, too - but I was beaten
to the suggestion. You seem to otherwise be running virtually the exact
same machine configuration as me!
So, I'm not sure what to suggest. Just curious, though... Have/had you
been experiencing similar DNS look-up issues like me?
Will Gortoa
Well, unless it's related to this morning's reported problems - in the
thread of its own name - 4:00-4:30pm here and the problem is as bad as
it's ever been... Slow look-ups, spiralling 'loading' look-ups that then
never arrive. And yet, if I do a speedtest, excellent speeds are duly
reported!!
Absolute rubbish.
So, have we a general consensus on whether or not this is a Demon issue?
Because, along with them dropping the price of the HomeOffice 2+ by 30%+
just a couple of months after virtually forcing me [following collapse
of service following ADSL2 upgrade requiring new router] to sign a 12
month contract, I'm tempted to rip it up and go somewhere else with all
this unrelenting hassle - never mind wait until the end of the contract!
Will Gortoa
Time and time again - almost more often than not - I'm loading pages and
they just sit there, occasionally loading when it's poked with an F5.
[And why should that make a difference - which it does, in circa 70-80%
of cases.] Utterly maddening.
I swear this makes the days of snail-up accounts/connections seem
efficient and rapid by comparison!
Peter Ceresole
> Well, unless it's related to this morning's reported problems - in the
> thread of its own name - 4:00-4:30pm here and the problem is as bad as
> it's ever been... Slow look-ups, spiralling 'loading' look-ups that then
> never arrive. And yet, if I do a speedtest, excellent speeds are duly
> reported!!
>
> Absolute rubbish.
>
> So, have we a general consensus on whether or not this is a Demon issue?
There was definitely something wrong early this morning, but as the
thread indicates it was fixed, and from here it was working fine from
about 1100 onwards. All the sites I try are coming up as quickly as can
be expected. So it doesn't look like a general Demon issue.
On the other hand, now you are on ASDL2+ and LLU, the last step is
entirely Demon's responsibility. But I can't easily see any way that
this would affect your DNS lookups, especially if:
(1) your speed tests return good rates, so it's very unlikely that DNS
lookups are failing becasue of transmission errors.
(2) your router, if it has DNS entries, has the Demon name server
addresses
(3) You have the Demon server addresses in your computer's network
settings, and 4.2.2.1 in the extra settings.
(4) You have your system set to use DHCP.
As you tell us that all these conditions are met, I'm completely out of
ideas. I can understand that you must be horribly irritated. But I
don't know the peculiarities of Windows networking, so I may be missing
something blindingly obvious.
--
Peter
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, have we a general consensus on whether or not this is a Demon issue?
[Snip other truisms pertaining to my set-up]
>(4) You have your system set to use DHCP.
Just remind me what this is?
>I can understand that you must be horribly irritated.
Yer not kidding!
e.g. I've been using Facebook for the past 30-40 minutes. Sometimes the
pages load, sometimes they don't, sometimes they hang then load on an F5
poke.
Oh, and 'Obtain an IP address automatically'... Any possible issue -
reflecting the forgoing - there?
Paul Terry
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>So, have we a general consensus on whether or not this is a Demon
>issue?
I've not had any problems here since yesterday morning's issue was
fixed.
--
Paul Terry
Andy
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote
[
>
>(3) You have the Demon server addresses in your computer's network
>settings, and 4.2.2.1 in the extra settings.
>
Will Gortoa
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
It's increasingly looking like an issue here, then, eh?
Which is beginning to make me think this new hard disk [unavoidable] and
fresh reinstall of XP wasn't such a great idea. It feels like I'm sat in
front of a white elephant at the moment!!
I've just gone looking for new drivers for the SiS 900 PCI Fast Ethernet
Adapter, and it did appear to find some. [After the 'local shop' guys
who did the upgrade for me said I wouldn't need any new driver
updates*]. However, I've installed them, and the problem seemingly
continues.
* My Waco tablet certainly didn't work properly without me installing
the drivers from the disk.
Denis McMahon
> In message <1ja9hm0.1ljw5pln4tymhN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter
> Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote
> [
>>
>> (3) You have the Demon server addresses in your computer's network
>> settings, and 4.2.2.1 in the extra settings.
>>
> Ignorance here - who or what lives at 4.2.2.1?
Level 3 public dns
Also I think at 4.2.2.2 through 4.2.2.6
Although I thought having all your dns on one network segment was
considered "not smart".
Of course, if you run a real os you can use resolv.conf, and not worry
about the windows (or even the router) limiting the number of servers
you try.
### start resolv.conf ###
# demon servers
nameserver 158.152.1.58
nameserver 158.152.1.43
# google public dns
nameserver 8.8.8.8
nameserver 8.8.4.4
# Level 3 Communications (Broomfield, CO, US)
nameserver 4.2.2.1
nameserver 4.2.2.2
nameserver 4.2.2.3
nameserver 4.2.2.4
nameserver 4.2.2.5
nameserver 4.2.2.6
# Verizon (Reston, VA, US)
nameserver 151.197.0.38
nameserver 151.197.0.39
nameserver 151.202.0.84
nameserver 151.202.0.85
nameserver 151.202.0.85
nameserver 151.203.0.84
nameserver 151.203.0.85
nameserver 199.45.32.37
nameserver 199.45.32.38
nameserver 199.45.32.40
nameserver 199.45.32.43
# GTE (Irving, TX, US)
nameserver 192.76.85.133
nameserver 206.124.64.1
# One Connect IP (Albuquerque, NM, US)
nameserver 67.138.54.100
# OpenDNS (San Francisco, CA, US)
nameserver 208.67.222.222
nameserver 208.67.220.220
# Exetel (Sydney, AU)
nameserver 220.233.167.31
# VRx Network Services (New York, NY, US)
nameserver 199.166.31.3
# SpeakEasy (Seattle, WA, US)
nameserver 66.93.87.2
nameserver 216.231.41.2
nameserver 216.254.95.2
nameserver 64.81.45.2
nameserver 64.81.111.2
nameserver 64.81.127.2
nameserver 64.81.79.2
nameserver 64.81.159.2
nameserver 66.92.64.2
nameserver 66.92.224.2
nameserver 66.92.159.2
nameserver 64.81.79.2
nameserver 64.81.159.2
nameserver 64.81.127.2
nameserver 64.81.45.2
nameserver 216.27.175.2
nameserver 66.92.159.2
nameserver 66.93.87.2
# Sprintlink (Overland Park, KS, US)
nameserver 199.2.252.10
nameserver 204.97.212.10
nameserver 204.117.214.10
# Cisco (San Jose, CA, US)
nameserver 64.102.255.44
nameserver 128.107.241.185
#### end resolv.conf ####
I could add ips for *.gtld-servers.net in there, but it's probably not
needed, I doubt if I ever drop past the level 3 servers
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Andy
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
[]
>Which is beginning to make me think this new hard disk [unavoidable]
>and fresh reinstall of XP wasn't such a great idea. It feels like I'm
>sat in front of a white elephant at the moment!!
(better than behind...)
>
[
>After the 'local shop' guys who did the upgrade for me
]
Thinks. They have probably gone to Windows Upgrade and downloaded all it
offered. This will include Service Pack 3. I have a vague (it's an age
thing) recollection that XP-SP3 and TP6 didn't get on well - can anyone
else confirm or deny?
John Hall
Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I have a vague (it's an age thing) recollection that XP-SP3 and TP6
>didn't get on well - can anyone else confirm or deny?
I'm using that combination with no problems. However I see that Will is
still using TP6.05, and it's just possible that upgrading to 6.07 might
help.
Will Gortoa
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article <6Ej$OTMVur...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>,
> Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>I have a vague (it's an age thing) recollection that XP-SP3 and TP6
>>didn't get on well - can anyone else confirm or deny?
>
>I'm using that combination with no problems. However I see that Will is
>still using TP6.05, and it's just possible that upgrading to 6.07 might
>help.
But, surely, TP would have no bearing on general browsing the Internet?
Bearing in mind that TP isn't permanently 'open' here - I occasionally
use the Deliver option to check mail. [In fact, I'd say TP is one of the
few things that continues to work impeccably!]
Will Gortoa
>In message <JAcARVCu...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Will Gortoa
><|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>[]
>>Which is beginning to make me think this new hard disk [unavoidable]
>>and fresh reinstall of XP wasn't such a great idea. It feels like I'm
>>sat in front of a white elephant at the moment!!
>
>(better than behind...)
Hehe... :)
Actually, you're probably right, it increasingly feels like I'm sitting
behind it!! :)
>[
>>After the 'local shop' guys who did the upgrade for me
>]
>
>Thinks. They have probably gone to Windows Upgrade and downloaded all
>it offered. This will include Service Pack 3. I have a vague (it's an
>age thing) recollection that XP-SP3 and TP6 didn't get on well - can
>anyone else confirm or deny?
Well, I can definitely confirm that they did the above. But TP is
absolutely fine.
Will Gortoa
[Bangs head on desk]
Somewhat ironically - and somewhat prophetically [given that the first
thing I did this morning is make this two replies in this thread about
TP behaving beautifully; as always] - *NOTHING* is loading this morning
in the browser.
It must be something to do with this set-up here, surely?! It's
beginning to drive me insane trying to work out what it is. [And
apologies to anyone else in advance, if I'm driving them insane, too! If
it's this set-up, then I'm clearly straying off-topic, eh? : 7]
Peter Ceresole
> It must be something to do with this set-up here, surely?!
I rather think it must be. Now you've said that your system was repaired
(well, changed hard drive) and probably reinstalled by a third party, it
sounds very much as though something has been b0rked in that process.
TP might well be fine because (a) it doesn't handle that much data
compared to web pages full of pictures and (b) once connected it doesn't
have to dodge about resolving new addresses, which the brwser has to do.
I repeat; because I use a Mac I wouldn't know about the details of the
Windows networking setup, but it looks very possible that your problem
lies there.
Do you have any friends within reach who are successfully running a
Windows box connected to the Net, and who could help? Or could you
possibly do a screen capture of your networking control panel, and post
it via, say, <www.skitch.com>. It's free to start with, and would do
fine for this job. You could post the url here and we could see (well,
chaps who know what they're talking about could see) if anything looked
odd. I do realise that this involves going on line with a browser, but I
hope that you'd be able to get it posted.
I don't think that you should worry about being on topic; it's a Demon
connection you're talking about.
--
Peter
Paul Terry
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Somewhat ironically - and somewhat prophetically [given that the first
>thing I did this morning is make this two replies in this thread about
>TP behaving beautifully; as always] - *NOTHING* is loading this morning
>in the browser.
>
>It must be something to do with this set-up here, surely?!
Are the problem you're having confined to web browsing? In other words,
are email, news, FTP and so forth working OK?
Which web browser are you using? And do you have another one you could
try?
--
Paul Terry
Will Gortoa
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>In message <4yGs9LDE...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Will Gortoa
><|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>Somewhat ironically - and somewhat prophetically [given that the first
>>thing I did this morning is make this two replies in this thread about
>>TP behaving beautifully; as always] - *NOTHING* is loading this
>>morning in the browser.
>>
>>It must be something to do with this set-up here, surely?!
>
>Are the problem you're having confined to web browsing? In other words,
>are email, news, FTP and so forth working OK?
Everything seems fine aside from browsing.
>Which web browser are you using? And do you have another one you could
>try?
Well, IE is locked up in a vault somewhere! [I could release it at a
push. Although, I haven't used it - nor would intend to ever again - for
10 years!] I'm using the latest version of Firefox 3.5.5.
Will Gortoa
Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>
>Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It must be something to do with this set-up here, surely?!
>
>I rather think it must be. Now you've said that your system was repaired
>(well, changed hard drive) and probably reinstalled by a third party, it
>sounds very much as though something has been b0rked in that process.
>
>TP might well be fine because (a) it doesn't handle that much data
>compared to web pages full of pictures and (b) once connected it doesn't
>have to dodge about resolving new addresses, which the brwser has to do.
>
>I repeat; because I use a Mac I wouldn't know about the details of the
>Windows networking setup, but it looks very possible that your problem
>lies there.
>
>Do you have any friends within reach who are successfully running a
>Windows box connected to the Net, and who could help?
I might be able to [time and schedules permitting] take this unit to
another place to at least test browsing speeds while using another ISP.
Maybe some time next week.
>Or could you possibly do a screen capture of your networking control
>panel, and post it via, say, <www.skitch.com>. It's free to start with,
>and would do fine for this job. You could post the url here and we
>could see (well, chaps who know what they're talking about could see)
>if anything looked odd.
That's very generous Peter. :) Which screen captures would be relevant?
[Assuming someone else could/would do this - given your Mac usage.]
>I do realise that this involves going on line with a browser, but I
>hope that you'd be able to get it posted.
I just wound Windoze back to a restore point before yesterday evening -
following a couple of late additional driver tweaks. And at least I'm
back to where I was before now... Pages loading intermittently, rather
than none loading at all, as reported first thing. [Whether that
possibly confirms that it's set-up and/or driver related somewhere along
the line, I'm really not sure?]
>I don't think that you should worry about being on topic; it's a Demon
>connection you're talking about.
True. :)
Stephen Wolstenholme
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, IE is locked up in a vault somewhere! [I could release it at a
>push. Although, I haven't used it - nor would intend to ever again - for
>10 years!] I'm using the latest version of Firefox 3.5.5.
I don't know anything about Firefox as I've never used it. Does it
have DNS prefetch? If so, try switching it off. That solves some DNS
problems in Chrome and it may help with Firefox as well. Prefetch can
be switched back on if/when the problem clears.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Paul Terry
<|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Everything seems fine aside from browsing.
I think you should look at your browser settings in that case - the
trouble is there are a huge number, which is why I think it might be
quicker to simply try another browser.
However, one other thing occurs to me. When you reinstalled Windows, the
Windows firewall would have been re-enabled. As you almost certainly
have a firewall in your router, I suggest turning off the Windows
firewall and see if this makes a difference.
--
Paul Terry
Pedt
Dec 2009, Will Gortoa <|||TheHipBlueBirdHouse|||@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wibbled
>>Are the problem you're having confined to web browsing? In other
>>words, are email, news, FTP and so forth working OK?
>
>Everything seems fine aside from browsing.
>
>>Which web browser are you using? And do you have another one you could
>>try?
>
>Well, IE is locked up in a vault somewhere! [I could release it at a
>push. Although, I haven't used it - nor would intend to ever again -
>for 10 years!] I'm using the latest version of Firefox 3.5.5.
>
I wonder if the people who re-installed your system have put any add-ons
into Firefox - you can check with Tools --> Add-ons.
It would be worth checking with a different web browsers. From Demon's
own FTP site you could get Opera by FTP as you say FTP is fine.
Latest version available on Demon is in /pub/mirrors/opera/win/964/en/
--
Pedt