- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by3.5mbit upgrades?
by Simon Allard 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

> With this service limitation I can easily see how Quicksilver could > potentially be affected more than Ihug, Iconz, Xtra and Orcon. I would > guess that the average user profile on Quicksilver would tend towards > higher bandwidth usage whereas the typical Xtra (etc) user would > probably use less bandwidth. > > Unfortunately if this view I have is correct then I don't see an end to > problems unless either the average Quicksilver user profile changes -or- > Telecom changes the PVC limitation. I am curious to know what effect offering free national traffic has on the QSI DSL Network. In my experience offering free anything in this environment Telecom has created causes nothing by problems.

5 6

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbit upgrades?
by Regan Murphy 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

>>Just curious if any other ISPs are suffering from supposed "industry wide" >>throughput issues on the Telecom DSL network caused by telecom "upgrading too >>many customers to 3.5mbit without upgrading their network"? Well for me the problem started before any customers were upgraded and the problem has continued well through the upgrade - I now have an automatically upgraded 3.5Mbps connection and speeds are no better/worse. I have been suffering poor performance on QSI for quite some time now. My initial post to the helpdesk via their webpage was submitted on March 14 - I had been having problems for weeks before that though. This is the response I received: "I have spoken to the network staff and they let me know that a 2Mb connection can drop as low as 24Kbps especially at peak times as this is the nature of the UBS service that telecom offers." I was, at that time, on the 2Mbps service and I was having problems even running terminal sessions to my office (which is five hops away on a 10 Mbps connection via APE). Attempting a download resulted in speeds between 7KB/sec and 30KB/sec typically. This was only noticed during peak times - 6pm to 11pm. I tried a download at 5am one morning and it ran almost at full speed. A friend of mine recently changed from Orcon to QSI. He is on an exchange on the other side of AKL from me. On the Thursday (with Orcon) he was sustaining a 220KB/sec download from the linux mirror at citylink. On the Friday when he was changed over to QSI he couldn't get better than 80KB/sec from the same source and he has had speed problems since. He changed about 2-3 weeks ago. I initially assumed that the problems were due to oversubscription cause by the Telecom changes to the DSL (I figured they bought the changes in early) and this is the line I have been given talking to the QSI helpdesk. As changing providers is a painful (and expensive) process I've been reluctant to switch without knowing for sure where the problem lay. -- Regan

8 8

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by3.5mbit upgrades?
by Regan Murphy 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Yes, thanks to Mark for replying. This additional information makes me less likely to attribute the blame to Quicksilver for these problems. > 1) We currently have a project underway to increase our Private > Virtual Circuit (PVC) size from Telecom to manage future forecasted growth. > Telecom > controls the dimension of this PVC and constrains its size to 24kbit/s > per customer. >>Yet at the same time, customers of Ihug, Iconz, Orcon and Xtra are all able to get much higher rates... With this service limitation I can easily see how Quicksilver could potentially be affected more than Ihug, Iconz, Xtra and Orcon. I would guess that the average user profile on Quicksilver would tend towards higher bandwidth usage whereas the typical Xtra (etc) user would probably use less bandwidth. Unfortunately if this view I have is correct then I don't see an end to problems unless either the average Quicksilver user profile changes -or- Telecom changes the PVC limitation. -- Regan

1 0

QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbit upgrades?
by Matt Camp 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Hi all, Just curious if any other ISPs are suffering from supposed "industry wide" throughput issues on the Telecom DSL network caused by telecom "upgrading too many customers to 3.5mbit without upgrading their network"? Those are direct quotes from the Quicksilver Internet helpdesk person I just spoke to. This puzzles me, because in todays age of UBS, etc, I wasn't aware that such congestion could occur and affect everyone. I am especially surprised since I have had some people on ihug and xtra dsl (in one case not far from here, probably on the same exchange) run some tests, and they get 220kB/s, whereas I am currently getting... 7.5kB/s, and it's been that way for 3 days. It also puzzles me since a friend in Wellington on Quicksilver is getting almost exactly the same crappy performance as I'm getting in Auckland... pretty big coincidence that two exchanges so far apart are giving exactly the same performance issues at the same time? It's been a while since I actually dealt with the internals of DSL from the ISP end, especially in the UBS-era, so I'm posting here to see if anyone has any info one way or the other. FYI, Quicksilver have recommended that I contact Telecom to complain, or maybe write them a letter. They also refuse to update their network status page (despite admitting that virtually all their dsl users are affected, and many are complaining) because it would "be detrimental, as it's not Quicksilvers problem". Does this actually sound real, or am I being just fobbed off by the helpdesker? Are any of you other ISPs having similar issues, and can anyone point me at any info direct from Telecom about the issue? - Matt Camp

9 10

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbitupgrades?
by Matt Camp 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Indeed, I've now heard from around 8 or 9 Quicksilver users from all over the country, all of whom are getting SERIOUSLY bad speeds anywhere near peak times. I'm talking getting down around 200-300kbit on average, sometimes down as low as 60kbit. But it's not just the throughput... latency is floating from 70ms up to around 4400ms... floating WILDLY... enough that it makes SSHing over the dsl connection very difficult. But mainly my point was that Quicksilver are trying to tell their users that it's and industry-wide problem affecting all ISPs, and there is nothing that Quicksilver can do to fix it (apart from sending endless screenshots of their bandwidth tester, which they are apparently forwarding to telecom). The fact that people can get good speeds using an xtra username, and crap using a qsi one on the same line indicates that this is NOT the per-exchange congestion problem seen in some areas (Mt Eden, for example) At this point in time I'd just like someone to admit that perhaps they don't have enough bandwidth, and just give us a realistic eta on when that can be resolved. Trying to pass the blame just pisses more people off. > > >> Remember.. your speed is NOT guaranteed, but if you are buying a 3.5M >> connection >> >> and can NEVER get 3.5M.... > > I think you guys are missing the point in his email. > > [snip] > whereas I am currently getting...7.5kB/s, and it's been that way for 3 > days. > [/snip] > > That sounds like a serious problem rather than a "I never get 3.5M" > problem. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >

1 0

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbitupgrades?
by Simon Allard 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

> Remember.. your speed is NOT guaranteed, but if you are buying a 3.5M > connection > > and can NEVER get 3.5M.... I think you guys are missing the point in his email. [snip] whereas I am currently getting...7.5kB/s, and it's been that way for 3 days. [/snip] That sounds like a serious problem rather than a "I never get 3.5M" problem.

2 1

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbit upgrades?
by Scott Weeks 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

----- Original Message Follows ----- From: "Craig Whitmore" <lennon(a)orcon.net.nz> > http://www.nzdsl.co.nz/graphs/) This is about 50000 > recorded tests from Could you let me know what program you used to graph this and how you collected the data? Thanks, scott

1 0

Someone from CallPlus
by Shane Hobson 25 Apr '06

25 Apr '06

Please, would someone from CallPlus be able to contact me off list regarding Hamilton City Council ? Regards Shane Hobson 07 838 6725 021 742 634

1 0

ANZ problems? Phishing redirect attack?
by Paul Adshead 23 Apr '06

23 Apr '06

Is anyone else having issues getting to http://www.anz.co.nz or http://www.anz.com (- see attached for what is served up here)? Especially Telecom-fibre-connected parties? Funnily enough there's no problem when connecting from an Xtra dial-up - work that out... There are no known phishing-redirect attempts or similar in progress for ANZ are there? Cheers, Paul.

3 2

Re: [nznog] Port 25
by Mark GOLDFINCH 23 Apr '06

23 Apr '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Steve, The reason why paradise.net said it was not possible at the time was because for two reasons: 1) Our MTA at the time did not support OMDR or any similar features to achieve delivery of mail using OMDR or other features to acheive the same means. 2) Later we developed our own Dynamic SMTP MTA which delivers mail to customer's dynamically assigned IP address after verifying that we indeed have the correct customer on the expected RAS port. OMDR requires quite a bit of compliance from the customer point of view. Our own Dialup SMTP solution required very little support from the customer's point of view other than having an SMTP server listening on their dialup connection. I'm thinking that this day in age with DDNS and broadband connections becoming far more relevant that SMTP delivery to dynamic IP addresses is becoming less of an issue. But then perhaps I'm mistaken. - -- Mark Goldfinch Senior Systems Administrator IS: Unix Systems TelstraClear Ltd > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Lang [mailto:steve(a)spl.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2006 20:59 > To: Simon > Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [nznog] Port 25 > > > Dare I suggest something worth talking about amongst the recent > flaming.... but.... > > Some time ago, I was asking about ISP's that provided ODMR > services. RFC > 2645 (http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=2645) Can't recall > where that thread went - someone from paradise saying something about > them not wanting to do it 'cause it would make them insecure or > something... Didn't make sense at the time. > > In any case, this would appear to be to be a good solution. > The RFC has > been around for a long time (1999), and it appears that there may be > more than just a couple of clients/servers. > > But, I still can't find anyone that supports it. Any clues who might? > Anyone from ISP land that want's to create an ODMR service? > Don't need a > static IP, should work with everyone etc. etc. > > Cheers - > > Simon wrote: > > Just a quick email to the list to find out what other service > > providers are doing regarding XTRA blocking port 25 when > your company > > does not provide internet connections, so many of your customers are > > using xtra as a service provider but not for other services wuch as > > mail. > > > > Many of my customers are XTRA customers, but are also vodafone etc > > etc, so an external autheticated mail server is a huge > bonus for them. > > Use secure port? > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NZNOG mailing list > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.5 (Build 5050) iQEVAwUBREwdjFJxzSk14MzBAQi77wf7BTyKlx1UQra8IlLVzx38PIZtdaEkPWIb ZKfXGNQRsEhoUkTfAm3oZE0gkdmAoa3uBHzWl9ITFBiiS8OAqSmBokNack2lpN1z ZIVFuSHvFDR+S8OGMp9C27QSLz0QFb0972ikIzvVUGPXttkLe9ywlUpqJHIjQbTh RfW1DzpYbC6olVb7wizksT9ZIravDzgDOUmKXXUMfTcKPNXiQvrhT3uXhJX+XIJk l1da+ttyh6JYRTDJTvwAq4rx4ICr1F8RbdcTpnkoSnXC9zlqXxp+ZLhIek8NJVga tFvamDlSG6BD2DJXJ0w1V7FUhPSI5eKc9U4YCcX8CjZDes4Lnz0U4Q== =XQZ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1