[GRLUG] !Linux-periodic dns failure

[Bob Kline]

A followup,  Comcast seems to have
no interest in faster network offerings.
I was told in December that it would
be "rolling out" faster services.

What I see instead is "business services,"
available only in some areas, that are
faster, on paper, and cost an arm and a
leg.

Of course "business services" is another
way of saying "much more expensive."
So of course why offer residential speed
equivalents, and let everyone see that they
are about as good.

   -- Bob


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just curious, why is something like
> this better than, say, Google's DNS
> service?  I've used that for a while now,
> and it's quite reliable and fast.
>
> i.e., I presume you pay for the "business"
> service, but what do you actually get for it?
> Hand holding, if that's effective, but maybe
> you shouldn't need that if the service is any
> good.
>
>    -- Bob
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Bill Littlejohn <billl at mtd-inc.com>
>> wrote:
>> > We use Charter Business as our primary ISP, and an internal forwarding
>> > DNS server that forwards to DynDNS for external domains.
>> > A couple times a week we're having failure of DNS for about 10 minutes
>> > at a time, so I wrote a script to check the Charter gateway, internal
>> > DNS, DynDNS, OpenDNS, and Charter DNS.
>> > During the last failure (ending 10:02am today) I ran the script and
>> > all external DNS queries timed out except for Charter's DNS.
>> > That would seem to indicate that Charter is somehow dropping or
>> > interfering with those external DNS queries.
>> > Anyone know how I might verify that?
>> >
>> > I called Charter support... they offered to send someone to test our
>> > modem. <sigh>
>>
>> A note: DNS uses UDP, which (unlike TCP) does not guarantee delivery.
>> It's quite possible that they're dealing with network congestion,
>> causing dropped packets. For TCP, this just results in lowered
>> throughput until your local machines re-send their packets, but UDP
>> doesn't have a fallback like that.
>>
>> Use a VPN to tunnel your DNS queries through? I'd suggest configuring
>> the VPN tunnel to use TCP as a carrier (OpenVPN, for example, supports
>> both TCP and UDP as carriers), so your UDP packets are guaranteed to
>> get to the other end of the VPN link, at least.
>>
>>
>> --
>> :wq
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grlug mailing list
>> grlug at grlug.org
>> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>>
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20100831/483149e4/attachment-0001.html>