DNS servers not responding

[snadge]

hi all

just out of curiosity...

I thought I would add IDnet's DNS from my dads connection settings email to the benchmarking apps I use to test and compare with others, however it reports they are not repsonding?

Primary DNS: 212.69.40.3
> Secondary DNS: 212.69.36.3

have these changed?

the DNS apps I use are
http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
http://code.google.com/p/namebench/

both are good although i think namebench does longer more vigorous tests but not sure

[Steve]

You've got the correct addresses for the DNS

[Rik]

And they are working fine here.

ping 212.69.40.3

Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=61

Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 13ms

ping 212.69.36.3

Pinging 212.69.36.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.3: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.3: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.3: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.3: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.3:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms

[Happy Surfer]

wow thats an impressive ping response there rik

[Rik]

Fast path, ADSL2+. Curiously, on Max, I was interleaved and 1M slower.

[Glenn]

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

H:\>ping 212.69.40.3

Pinging 212.69.40.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=48
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=48
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=48
Reply from 212.69.40.3: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 212.69.40.3:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 5ms, Maximum = 8ms, Average = 6ms



Not my home connection, sadly.

[Rik]

 

[Happy Surfer]

average 6ms?! 

[Gary]

PING 212.69.40.3 (212.69.40.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=16.026 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=15.872 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=15.075 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.794 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=15.298 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=15.858 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=15.285 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=16.413 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=14.912 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=15.657 ms

--- 212.69.40.3 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 14.794/15.519/16.413/0.501 ms


ing has started…

PING 212.69.36.3 (212.69.36.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=19.208 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=18.314 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.649 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=21.125 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=17.037 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=17.998 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=18.002 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=19.017 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=17.342 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=17.421 ms

--- 212.69.36.3 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 17.037/18.311/21.125/1.149 ms
here are my two pings to those, on standard ADSL Max

[snadge]

crikeys..

under 10ms on standard ADSLmax interleaved??
im gunna have to get my dad to test his..

im on o2 20Mb and get 27ms Interleaved which I though was brill for interleaving

[Rik]

I suspect that was a leased line.

[Glenn]

No snadge, it's from my works connection.

[snadge]

look at Garys - 15-16ms on ADSLmax??? - surely thats FastPath?

[Rik]

It should be.

[Bill]

look at Garys - 15-16ms on ADSLmax??? - surely thats FastPath?

Via FTTC:

PING 212.69.40.3 (212.69.40.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=11.084 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=10.975 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=10.894 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=11.028 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=10.934 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=11.081 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=10.992 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=10.885 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.047 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=10.981 ms
^C
--- 212.69.40.3 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 10.885/10.990/11.084/0.067 ms


PING 212.69.36.3 (212.69.36.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=13.269 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=11.874 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=14.028 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=12.919 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=14.580 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=11.460 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=12.872 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=17.788 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=12.726 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=13.875 ms
^C
--- 212.69.36.3 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.460/13.539/17.788/1.678 ms

[snadge]

whats the connection though Bill?

does it have interleaving? or FastPath?

hey I just thought

for FTTC what is the actuall connection called? - like your have ADSL / ADSLmax / ADSL2 / ADSL2+ ... FTTC is like bringing the exchange to the end of your street or next street - so whats the connection between the PCP (Cabinet) to the home?

[esh]

It's VDSL, snadge.

[Bill]

whats the connection though Bill?

does it have interleaving? or FastPath?

Good question, you can't get any stats from the BT modem. I assume it's fastpath, it was when the engineer installed it and I don't think it's re-sync'd since. Profile (from the BT speedtester) is 38717Kbps down, 10000Kbps up.

hey I just thought

for FTTC what is the actuall connection called? - like your have ADSL / ADSLmax / ADSL2 / ADSL2+ ... FTTC is like bringing the exchange to the end of your street or next street - so whats the connection between the PCP (Cabinet) to the home?

It's VDSL- Very-high-bitrate digital subscriber line. Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL

[snadge]

thanks Bill

nice sync rate buddy - especially upload - guess i will have to wait and make do with my 19,272k  / 1,300k

[esh]

"Make do"! Tsk! 

[Steve]

I just wonder whether it's VDSL2 the information I can find is not clear

[esh]

I believe it is, it has generally a higher performance and is roughly equivalent to ADSL2 at 1.6km.

[Bill]

There has been some muttering about higher speeds being available in future (presumably when BT get the backhaul in to handle it), so it's quite possible that it's VDSL2 kit that's been restricted to VDSL rates.

[esh]

Something like 200Mbit within 250m of your beloved green box of cabling pandemonium. I'm pretty sure the BT backhaul can't carry that yet. Also I believe VDSL actually is worse than previous technologies at a certain distance whereas VDSL2 is almost always "as good" as ADSL2 except at extreme ranges, so it makes more sense I think.

Edit: what am I saying.... when have BT made sense!?

[Rik]

Answers, on a postcard please, to...