Rogers (cable)

[DraXsuS]

I heard that rogers cable, (the ottawa cable company)
is gonna buy most of all cable companys in canada! sweet!

[blake_sw]

I got Rogers Cable..what's so good about the Roger's buying all the other companies?

[DraXsuS]

its one major big canadian company...! AND MAYBE IN THE FUTUR! THEY WILL BUY EVERY CABLE COMPANY IN THE US!!!

[Nemessis]

NOoooooo they suck. The internet always is sucky with them

[DraXsuS]

HEy! DONT DIS! MY CABLE!!!

[DraXsuS]

Im talking about televison cable,

And 2: If the cable is slow, its not their fault, every cable internet can get slow, Its because its shared!

[krasher]

When their lines go down, it is their fault.

[axi0n]

Believe it when people tell you Rogers sucks @ss...

Maybe not where you are.. But in the GTA.. There are a whole lot of indicators which prove that they run an Amateur hour op.

DHCP is setup to give 2 DNS Servers.. a third if you want...

24.66.126.33
24.66.126.34
24.66.126.35

What is the problem with this? They are all on the same 255.255.255.0 subnet.. If 24.66.126.1 or 24.66.126.254 goes down, no one has DNS name resolution, unless they specify a separate one (I use U of T dns).

Making matters worse, as someone pointed out it is a shared medium, (DSL is as well for that matter). But if that segment hits its point of saturation, name resolutions slows for everyone.

Next, in order to apparently speed up the web for those uninformed masses that believe "the web" *IS* the internet, they have HTTP proxies setup to cache web content. Guess which machines these are hosted on? Thats right the same machines as the DNS servers.

Rogers has the worst track record for customer service, but yet their "big brother" abilities are crazy, one of the head tech's for Rogers in the GTA stays at my parents resort near Peterborough and he was showing me how he can audit transfers, connections, open ports on clients, etc, etc... They were also talking about implementing head end router bandwidth throttling, (mainly for upstream traffic).

But still.. With shaw at times I used to get 700k per sec frequently, one time I hit something obscene like 2300k per sec.. Now that Rogers took over from Shaw in my area. DHCP leases / IP's expire without warning (my IP has changed 5 times in the last 3 days), and my transfers are more on the order of maybe 250k on a good day to a known fast and private server.

Rogers plain out and out stinks... If it wasn't for me hating DSL equally or more and not being able to afford a dedicated T, I would cancel my service with them in a second.

Ax.

[Wicked_Vengence]

Out of idle curiosity axi0n, where do you get you facts? "If 24.66.126.1 or 24.66.126.254 goes down, no one has DNS name resolution"??? I would say that if 24.66.126.1 goes down you would lose your connection (Typically this is reserved for routers) but would STILL be able to get DNS resolution BECAUSE they servers are on the same subnet. Not knowing how they have set up thier service, it is possable that they have several routers that are set up to use the 24.66.126.1 address, just to avoid service outage. As for the Proxy machines, you REALLY should have them on your DNS servers, and for some people this DOES help speed up the load times on a number of web pages. I don't see why that means they run a shoddy operation.
I am not defending Rogers, I have had thier service and was less than amused, but then I don't find many cable providers that are decent. In regards to the Big Brother coment, it is easy to get stat's and monitor your Internet usage. You computer does it all the time, and if you knew how, you could fnd that information too. They don't HAVE to monitor it, they just have to look it up.
If you are going to state something as fact though, make sure that it IS fact. You might also want to read up a bit more on computer networking...

[krasher]

Well, I'm not one for technical details on computers, but I do know that rogers is damn slow compared to what it should be. I live in the suburbs where it should be fast, but no. Plus, in the US in major citys they can get very fast speeds still, yet there is like 5-10X the population of my city (mississauga).

[axi0n]

24.66.126.1 is the gateway / router for that subnet..

So unless you are on that particular subnet, your DNS is screwed because no one can get to the DNS servers...n As for having multiple routers configured for failover and redundancy. They do not. Anyone who has experienced outages around the GTA can attest to their poor infrastructure.

Most people who know anything can get around it by statically declaring their DNS Server of preference.. But the vast majority just settle for whatever the DHCP settings spit at them.

As for reading up on computer networking, its what I do as a living.

You mention its good for proxies to be on DNS servers or vice versa? Why, in your opinion, is this a good thing? considering the services aren't even closely related unless you are just referring to a caching nameserver, which they aren't. One just caches web content, the other resolves names.

Generally you separate functions like this and spread the servers through the infrastructure so you do not put yourself in the position of not being able to remain serviceable through a single point of failure scenario.

If the cache / proxies go down? No big deal the client just pulls a live version from the net. If joe user at home cannot access the subnet where all of the assigned DNS servers are, he'd better know IP addresses of everywhere he wants to go, or use an external DNS server.. Otherwise he's pooched until Rogers decides to get back online.


Ax.

[HavöK]

Enough with the Tecno Babble. my head hurts

[Wicked_Vengence]

Now I have to make some assumptions about how Rogers set things up. First, I assume that the DNS servers are set to be Recursive. Therefor, they will forward the queries of clients that use them. Client 1 sends query, DNS 1 recieves query, looks up authoritive DNS for query, gets page for query, caches info, returns query to client 1. Client 2 requests same page, DNS 1 pulls from cache, returns query. Now your theory, is that DNS 1 should find all the info, send it to a cache server, send it to a client, then if another client makes the request the DNS server can then contact the Cache server, re-request the info and send it to the client. Seeing as the ONLY impact that the caching has is hard drive space and MINIMAL CPU overhead (Which is far less that making a second request to anything), I can't comprehend how making them seperate would be a benifit. This is assuming that you mean an HTTP Proxy (Not a Proxy server I.E. MS Proxy 2.0) since they are using a router (24.66.126.1) and unique I.P.'s there is no need for a Proxy (MS kind).

"If joe user at home cannot access the subnet where all of the assigned DNS servers are, he'd better know IP addresses of everywhere he wants to go, or use an external DNS server.. " This makes me wonder. If Joe here can't access the SUBNET where the DNS servers are, there is one of two reasons. 1. Joe isn't connecting to his subnet (doesn't matter which subnet the DNS servers are on) 2. Joe can connect to his subnet BUT the router/infrastructure isn't working. Joe is able to contact the DNS on his subnet, but it can't forward any queries because it would use the same router. Either way, if you specify a different DNS (Such as your U of T) you would be unable to reach that as well. IF you used a Rogers DNS however, them MIGHT have a second router on the subnet that they are designed to use themselves (Such as to reduce saturation of the line or connected to a different/Higher speed backbone) so you could be screwing yourself be using a different DNS from the one they give.

I still say that you should read up on computer networking, you might do it for a living, but there still seems to be alot to learn.

[axi0n]

And even more techno-babble.


"Now I have to make some assumptions about how Rogers set things up. First, I assume that the DNS servers are set to be Recursive. Therefor, they will forward the queries of clients that use them. Client 1 sends query, DNS 1 recieves query, looks up authoritive DNS for query, gets page for query, caches info, returns query to client 1. Client 2 requests same page, DNS 1 pulls from cache, returns query. Now your theory, is that DNS 1 should find all the info, send it to a cache server, send it to a client, then if another client makes the request the DNS server can then contact the Cache server, re-request the info and send it to the client. Seeing as the ONLY impact that the caching has is hard drive space and MINIMAL CPU overhead (Which is far less that making a second request to anything), I can't comprehend how making them seperate would be a benifit. This is assuming that you mean an HTTP Proxy (Not a Proxy server I.E. MS Proxy 2.0) since they are using a router (24.66.126.1) and unique I.P.'s there is no need for a Proxy (MS kind)."

I think your missing my original point.. Rogers DHCP Server is on a different subnet altogether, it arbitrarily assigns the IP addresses for the DNS servers (the ips I posted earlier).

My point is that Rogers, because there are not multiple gateways to the 24.66.126.0/255.255.255.0 segment that they have created a single point of failure for themselves.

Regardless of whether or not the servers are active.. If there is no route to the hosts in question the DNS queries will never reach the server, whether they are authoritative, cache, or forwarders.

As for hosting a DNS and HTTP proxies on the same machine on the same segment. It should not be done because again when you think about it, DNS itself will not cause a major load to either the network. But factor in you have, for the sake of argument 10,000 clients using them also for HTTP proxies. For every HTTP request a client sends, the server has to check in its local cache to see whether the pages or resources exist there, if not it has to pull it down, or the client can configure to pull straight from the source. But the constant cache lookups and whatnot do pose a considerable impact to performance, IO, and bandwidth.

But my original argument was that all DNS servers were on a single subnet, one router goes and because they have no failover or redundancy like I said, there will be no DNS for anyone using DHCP assigned DNS servers. This could have easily been circumvented by spreading it around a little bit between different subnets. In some cases might even help out as some lucky people might have fewer hops to the first available DNS server. (thats a long shot, but potentially true).

[Wicked_Vengence]

Lets be nice to the others and move this to the Off Topic forum.

[MuckRaker]

yeah, this don't have a lot to do with paintball in the Great White North, so, I'll do Flash a favor and move this puppy on over to OT, and i'll try to paste that "continuation" thread onto this one.

enjoy.