View Full Version : NTL's Poxy Proxies
Lord Nikon
22-12-2003, 23:46
With regards NTL's P(r)oxy Servers, and the forced transparent proxy we are supposed to use etc There is a new petition here (http://www.petitiononline.com/ntlhpp/petition.html) to let us be able to choose our own.
Why is this petition sponsored by someone in a country unable to get ntl services?
It may be construed as a worthwhile cause by some, but its not a bandwagon I wish to subscribe to.
It may be construed as a worthwhile cause by some, but its not a bandwagon I wish to subscribe to.
You do not think NTL customers should have a choice as to if they use the NTL web proxies or not?
TBH I'm not really bothered who started it - the poxy servers are the single biggest cause of browsing problems IMO and should be optional.
You do not think NTL customers should have a choice as to if they use the NTL web proxies or not?
No - as I understand it, thats the way the network is configured.
No - as I understand it, thats the way the network is configured.Yes - that is the way it is configured atm - but it's only a simple change to stop the automatic routing of port 80 to the caches - thus allowing you the choice of manually specifying a proxy server of not.
Surely the choice, then, already exists?
Stuart W
23-12-2003, 00:07
I am truly amazed at the lengths Erol will go to in order to lobby ntl, bearing in mind Erol is neither an ntl customer, nor a UK resident.
Odd.
Got an axe to grind mate?
I am truly amazed at the lengths Erol will go to in order to lobby ntl, bearing in mind Erol is neither an ntl customer, nor a UK resident.
Odd.
Got an axe to grind mate?
Quite.
Surely the choice, then, already exists?No, there is no choice atm - anything I send to port 80 is routed to a Nottingham cache, there is nothing I can do about it unless NTL remove this automatic routing - then I would have a choice.
I believe that some areas within the NTL network do have this choice - their port 80 traffic is not automatically intercepted by a cache. Nottingham is not one of them. :(
Please do not get bogged down by who happened to start it - it's not really that relevant (I hadn't even noticed until it was pointed out) - lets be brutally honest here, NTL are unlikely to change anything based on an online petition - but at least it might wake them up slightly. :D
I understand the technicalities pem
check your pm
I am truly amazed at the lengths Erol will go to in order to lobby ntl, bearing in mind Erol is neither an ntl customer, nor a UK resident.
The lengths? 10 minutes to submit a petition is hardly 'onerous'. I (and others) spent 3 and half years lobbying for unmetered access in the UK, by comparision.
I am not a NTL customer, or currently a UK resident. However I have many friends and family that are UK residents and some that are NTL customers. My mother for example is an NTL Internet customer.
Odd.
Is it really any more odd than mods of this site not being NTL customers? If one (or more) of them were to emigrate from the UK but continue participating here and being a mod here, would you consider that odd too?
Got an axe to grind mate?
Not really. I genuinely believe that making the proxies optional for users would be of benefit to many users and of detriment to none. I am not sure a petition will achieve that, but I can not see how it could harm the ojective either.
I wonder what peoples feelings towards the proxies would be if NTL decided to make the caches(proxies) optional and that raised the cost of broadband to pay for all the extra off-network bandwidth that was being used.
Sounds like a "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation to me.
All that's needed is for the proxies to be maintained(fixed?), their speed is sometimes pitifull, their automatic refresh appears to be non existant, and their DNS look-ups are too slow to accept changes in DNS records.
However as i've said, I think abolish compulsory transparent caching would result in higher costs to customers.
Jon
I wonder what peoples feelings towards the proxies would be if NTL decided to make the caches(proxies) optional and that raised the cost of broadband to pay for all the extra off-network bandwidth that was being used.
Sounds like a "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation to me.
All that's needed is for the proxies to be maintained(fixed?), their speed is sometimes pitifull, their automatic refresh appears to be non existant, and their DNS look-ups are too slow to accept changes in DNS records.
However as i've said, I think abolish compulsory transparent caching would result in higher costs to customers.
Jon
I see where you're coming from John, & agree with you in principal, but the thing is-why should people have to pay more for a BB service from ntl than they do for the equivalent ADSL service just because ntl's network is b0rked & oversubscribed? (& will only get worse as they continue with their new push to sign up new customers?)
Why should people have to pay £25.00 a month & still have to keep switching proxies to get it to work? If I bought/rented a product, & kept having to 'fiddle' with it every time I wanted to use it just to get it to work, I'd be mighty pi$$ed of-the same applies here IMO.
Customers are paying ntl for a reliable product with good service, & they're simply not getting it due to ntl's inadequacies-Jeez they can't even provide a reliable email service, which surely must be regarded as a basic service in this day & age. :rolleyes:
Abolishing the transparent caches would raise BB costs undoubtedly, but that's the problem, ntl don't want to do that as they know they can't expect customers to keep paying extra just to get a basic working service, but they also can't expect customers to keep paying the going rate for a 3rd rate service either......
threadbare
23-12-2003, 08:56
its not practical to allow everyone to choose their own proxies - it would screw up ntl's routing completely
threadbare
23-12-2003, 08:57
Not really. I genuinely believe that making the proxies optional for users would be of benefit to many users and of detriment to none. I am not sure a petition will achieve that, but I can not see how it could harm the ojective either.no it wouldn't - see my earlier post
andygrif
23-12-2003, 10:52
its not practical to allow everyone to choose their own proxies - it would screw up ntl's routing completely
More than it is already? You might be right, I'm no teccy, but I do know that something has to be done about it.
Personaly I do not think allowing those that want, to not have to use the proxies will increase NTL's cost.
Firstly external bandwidth is a small to tiny fraction of the overall cost of provision that NTL pays. Of course these figures can be argued about till the cows come home but I have sppent some considerable time doing my best to understand the costs of provision of BB in the UK.My belief / best estimate is that external bandwidth represents between 1-5% of the cost of provision for NTL.
Secondly any savings that NTL make on external bandwidth have to be balanced against the cost of the proxy sw and server and more importantly the cost of staff to maintain them and the cost in support dealing with customer problems caused by them. The cost of external bandwidth is falling at a vast rate (again you can argue about how much / how quickly forever - but it is falling year on year). The cost of staff to maintain the proxies and support staff is not falling anywhere near the same rate as external bandwidth. So even if they do save some money for NTL now they will not at some point.
As for not forcing people to use the proxies 'messing up' NTL's routing - this is just not so, at least as I understand things (and I am happy to have someone explain to me why / how it would if I have misunderstood it). Many ISPs do not use forced proxies and users are free to specify one or not as they choose (either the ISPs if they offer one or someone elses if they do not) and it does not mess up their routing at all.
It seems to me that 'asking' for the _option_ to not be forced to use these proxies is about as reasonable request as can be made. It would imo be good for customers and NTL.
There is one possible way in which such choice would affect users - those that did choose to use keep using the proxies. Assuming that less people decide to use them then for any given page request there is less chance the proxy will have that page cahced locally. So I accept there is some potnetial downside to users that want the NTL proxies. However I stil feel that overall giving users the option to use the proxies or not will result in net benefits over all , for both users and NTL
Mr.Moony
23-12-2003, 11:54
This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).
I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.
Im starting a petition to not not user proxy servers. Yar.
When my browsing goes belly-up (as it all too often does) I find that specifying a proxy manually in my Network Settings always puts things right. Presumably this means I am blessed by being one of the lucky ones living in an area where NTL is not using transparent proxies to 'over-ride' my own network settings?
Every time I start thinking I understand these issues, another dimension gets added and I'm floundering again!
This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).
I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.
Im starting a petition to not not user proxy servers. Yar.
Hmm, you're an NTL Tech ? In that case could you please explain to me how this will screw up "load balance" (indeed, load balance of what ?).
IMO it would not make most peoples browsing any slower [or faster] - but many would notice that they no longer get zero response (or stale pages) because the damn things don't work properly. Still - I'm willing to change my view if you can prove otherwise. :)
I would not attach much significance to the fact that you haven't taken a "proxy related" call in ages - like many people I haven't made one in ages but this doesn't alter the fact that they still fail regularly. Those who know enough to blame them also know how to change them.
Proxy servers are becoming more and more of a waste of time anyway as more and more sites are becoming dynamic rather than static so the proxy is still having to go and get the updated page everytime (except that NTL's often don't resulting in errors) - they are now just becoming itermediate, unneccessary, failure prone, repeaters.
This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).
I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.
With respect Mr Moony I suggest that the sheer volume of posts, here and elsewhere, whereby someones browsing speed or their ability to access certain sites hade been improved by 'changing their proxy', is compelling evidence that the NTL proxies cause considerable problems for some users. I would even go as far as suggesting that 'change your proxy' is one of the most common suggestions to users experiencing web problems AND one of the most effective solutions on all NTL help foriums. Townys below is just one more example of this.
If the proxies were truely 'transparent' then this issue of being forced to use them would not arise. There is ample and clear evidence that they are not transparent. The problems they cause through mis configuration and over loading are what leads to users 'moving proxies' all the time and thus creates the 'load balance' (for specific proxies) problems. If users could simply switch off the proxies all togeather. I suggest that those that remained using them would actualy get a better service through them and thus would not continuously 'move around' - thus helping load balance, not hinder it. Even if they did not get the result they wanted from their local proxy the response of just 'turning it off' seems to me more likely than 'moving to a different non local one' - again helping load balance - not hindering it.
Towny as I understand it you are forced to go via an NTL proxy. When you add the setting manualy you change the proxy from the 'default' one to an explicit different one. What I am suggesting is that NTL give you the option of not having to use one at all, if you do not wish to. Thus this constant 'finding a good proxy' issue would all but disapear and in turn help NTLs load balance (imo).
I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters and if I have mis understood the issue then I would welcome clarification.
threadbare
23-12-2003, 12:55
More than it is already? You might be right, I'm no teccy, but I do know that something has to be done about it. yes a h*ll of a lot more
Hmm, you're an NTL Tech ? In that case could you please explain to me how this will screw up "load balance" (indeed, load balance of what ?).
As I understand it (and again I may not understand it correctly) the 'load balance' issues fall into two areas.
Firstly the 'load' on a given proxy server. If regions A,B,C and D's proxies are all failing then users tend tpo move to region E's proxy server (in very simple terms). This in turn puts more load on region E's server and thus increases the chance that this proxy will become 'overloaded' or 'unbalanced'. However as I have argued above, giving users the option to just not use a proxy at all would mean imo, that if region A,B,C and D's proxies were 'playing up' then most users would simply turn off their local proxy, thus helping load problems on server E not hindering them.
The other area where 'load balancing' is a potential problem would be on the internal NTL network links between regions. In an example whereby many of region A's customers are using region E's proxy server, then more traffic passes between region A and region E than would if all of regions A's cutomers were using region A's proxy server (or not using a proxy server at all, if they had such a choice). I personally do not feel this is a valid argument against giving users the option of not being forced through an NTL proxy for the same reasons as the 'server load balance' argument above. In addition to this, it is my iunderstanding that NTL's national fiber network, that carries the traffic between regions, is not even remotely 'oveloaded' and even with the descrepancies caused by users using proxies not in their local region has vast amounts of unused capacity (unlike the local distribution network).
SMHarman
23-12-2003, 13:27
This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).
I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.
Im starting a petition to not not user proxy servers. Yar.
Well one of your colleagues in Cardiff took a call from me last week.
When I can FTP without difficulty, connect to Demons POP servers without problem and download mail quickly, but find web browsing slow (in general and not on specific sites) then it's usually a proxy issue.
Stuartbe
23-12-2003, 14:30
Proxy servers are usualy used to cut down the amount of load on the ISP's pipe. I cant see ntl ditching this as its there to save them from buying a bigger pipe.
Proxy's are allways problematic - we ended up ditching them at work after only 3 months !!!!
Ditch the proxy's I say !!!!
Mr.Moony
23-12-2003, 15:10
Hmm, you're an NTL Tech ? In that case could you please explain to me how this will screw up "load balance" (indeed, load balance of what ?).
IMO it would not make most peoples browsing any slower [or faster] - but many would notice that they no longer get zero response (or stale pages) because the damn things don't work properly. Still - I'm willing to change my view if you can prove otherwise. :)
I would not attach much significance to the fact that you haven't taken a "proxy related" call in ages - like many people I haven't made one in ages but this doesn't alter the fact that they still fail regularly. Those who know enough to blame them also know how to change them.
Proxy servers are becoming more and more of a waste of time anyway as more and more sites are becoming dynamic rather than static so the proxy is still having to go and get the updated page everytime (except that NTL's often don't resulting in errors) - they are now just becoming itermediate, unneccessary, failure prone, repeaters.
Well for a start when the fastest Proxy servers in the country start to get unbalanced because every1 is using them constantly the people in the area using them transparently will notice a decrease in service (thought you would have got that one Pem). Not really load balance as such I shall have to agree. The time it will take for the proxy servers to respond to requested urls will get slower and slower and then finaly die.
There are other options around the problems, for instance nthw.com had different meta rules and seemed to get chached allot less than nthw.co.uk
Proxy servers are usualy used to cut down the amount of load on the ISP's pipe. I cant see ntl ditching this as its there to save them from buying a bigger pipe.
This is true but any saving on NTL's (external) 'pipe' must surely be balanced against the cost of implementing the proxy servers in the first place. If you start to include the cost of support calls caused by faulty proxies and the factor in an amount for 'customer dissatisfaction' I have personal have little doubt that the proxies cost NTL more than they save them right now. I would (again) point out that the cost of NTL's (external) 'pipe' is falling year on year. The cost of support and customer dissatisfaction is not.
Ditch the proxy's I say !!!!
That is certainly one 'option' and maybe there should be a petition for ditching them all togeather ? Another option would be for NTL to make them work but this itself costs money and is something that NTL have failed to do, from significant numbers (imo) of users perspectives.
Personal I see the option of making them optional as a kind of 'compromise / middle ground' option. Those that want to use them can and if they work and improve web browsing performance they will get used (imo). Those that do not want to use them can choose not to. I also think making them optional can only help any 'load balancing' problems, not cause / worsen them, and I have tried to explain my reasoning behind this.
I think making the proxies optional is a sensible, practicle, cost effective and relatively easy way NTL could improve the NTL Internet experience for many of it's users. This is not (from my perspective anyway) about 'attacking' NTL, but actually about trying to find ways of improving their services. It is also not about 'promoting myself' or NTLH. I had hoped that someone else might start the ball rolling (set up the petition) but they did not. I also considered using a 'psudeonym' as the author of the petition, for I was aware that some would choose not to sign it, not based on the merits of the issue, but based merely on the fact that I 'wrote' it. I do however have a personal aversion to using 'false' names and actually thought that this was such a clear and 'unpartisian' issue that such 'personal issues' would not become 'overriding'.
Given that only 5 people have so far signed I guess that either my perception of how much of a problem the forced use of proxies is to users is wrong or my perception of how much people would not sign based on me being the author is wrong :(
threadbare
23-12-2003, 16:07
I think making the proxies optional is a sensible, practicle, cost effective and relatively easy way NTL could improve the NTL Internet experience for many of it's users.
how are ntl going to implement this in a practical cost effective way?
how are users going to choose their proxies?
edit: i think its best for a petition to either make them work or do away with them
how are ntl going to implement this in a practical cost effective way?
Well again I would stress I am no expert (and always willing to hear from and learn from one) but I would imagine they simply 'turn off' the forced interception of port 80 requests.
how are users going to choose their proxies?
Enter nothing in IE proxy settings - no proxy is used.
Enter your local NTL proxy server - local NTL proxy is used
Enter a non local NTL proxy server - non local NTL proxy is used
Enter a third party proxy server - a third party proxy is used.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Or have I missed / misunderstood something ?
Stuartbe
23-12-2003, 16:21
Now there are six sig's
Get rid of them Totaly !!!!!!
They are slow and unstable !!!!
Enter nothing in IE proxy settings - no proxy is used.
Enter your local NTL proxy server - local NTL proxy is used
Enter a non local NTL proxy server - non local NTL proxy is used
Enter a third party proxy server - a third party proxy is used.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Or have I missed / misunderstood something ?
That was my understanding, although I suspect threadbare's question really means, 'how are the majority of users, with little technical understanding, going to make any use of this?'
The answer, I think, is that most of them won't, and many of those who try to read up on it will get intimidated by it. The first time I changed my proxy I screwed my eyes shut and held my breath before clicking 'OK'.
Now I've got over that hurdle I'm happy to muck about with settings like this, but I can well understand why many people would not want to.
threadbare
23-12-2003, 16:25
Well again I would stress I am no expert (and always willing to hear from and learn from one) but I would imagine they simply 'turn off' the forced interception of port 80 requests.
Enter nothing in IE proxy settings - no proxy is used.
Enter your local NTL proxy server - local NTL proxy is used
Enter a non local NTL proxy server - non local NTL proxy is used
Enter a third party proxy server - a third party proxy is used.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Or have I missed / misunderstood something ?that is pretty straight forward - but not for joe public. dont forget the majority of this forum are quite technically minded, and more than capable of making changes to their settings. picture a first time computer user trying to change these settings - its not easy for them.
edit: sp
Stuartbe
23-12-2003, 16:29
Why not have a webpage on NTL's site that send the settings via WPAD. The user can then just click on the link.
This would work as for some strange reason NTL tech support tell users to turn discovery on in I.E.
threadbare
23-12-2003, 16:32
Why not have a webpage on NTL's site that send the settings via WPAD. The user can then just click on the link.
This would work as for some strange reason NTL tech support tell users to turn discovery on in I.E. I have been told that - seems to be a fairly common misconception with some of their techs. Not that it makes a lot of difference - just takes a second or two longer for the homepage to display
Why not have a webpage on NTL's site that send the settings via WPAD. The user can then just click on the link.
This would work as for some strange reason NTL tech support tell users to turn discovery on in I.E.
And for browsers/OSes other than I.E. / Windoze?
Download Failed (1)
Mr.Moony
23-12-2003, 16:39
This would work as for some strange reason NTL tech support tell users to turn discovery on in I.E.
And yet the number of times people cant get to the registration page, that button is ticked and all is displayed....
Well for a start when the fastest Proxy servers in the country start to get unbalanced because every1 is using them constantly the people in the area using them transparently will notice a decrease in service (thought you would have got that one Pem). Not really load balance as such I shall have to agree. The time it will take for the proxy servers to respond to requested urls will get slower and slower and then finaly die.
There are other options around the problems, for instance nthw.com had different meta rules and seemed to get chached allot less than nthw.co.uk
What you describe is not, as you say, really load balancing. What you also seem to forget is that people are manually switching to the "fastest" servers around the country because their default one is a pile of crap. People don't keep switching proxies for the fun of it, they are forced to do it in order to get anywhere.
If users wern't forced through a proxy then, as pointed out elsewhere, few people would mess with their proxy settings at all - and therefore most people would bypass them and connect to web sites direct - so instead of all the http traffic being funnelled in & out of a few creaking proxy servers, it would be spread across the network(s).
edit: i think its best for a petition to either make them work or do away with them
and I think these are both 'valid' options and better that the current status quo. I would almost certainly support either petition (whoever 'wrote / sponsored' it) on that basis.
I do think however that making them optional is the most likely to get a postivie response from NTL (however slight that chance is)
To do away with them all togeather would involve NTL accepting that using them in the first place was a mistake. I see this as harder for NTL to do than to change the way they operate.
To make them work is a great solution but again imo if this was as easy and cheap to do as 'flicking a switch' (as I percive making them optional is) then I assume NTL would have already done so.
'how are the majority of users, with little technical understanding, going to make any use of this?'
I accept that for many users 'changing your proxy settings' is an intimidating thing to be told to do.
I would see an 'optional' world working in one of 2 ways. Either the standard install package would install the local proxy settings as default or it would not install any proxy settings. I think the former is prob best (though not easiest to implement).
Then if and when a user had web browsing problems they would seek help (presumably) either through CS or via sites like this. It should be relatively easy to then walk the user through 'disabling' the defaulty proxy and seeing if that resolves the issue. ATM such users go through the same process but in time the solution may no longer work (as the proxy they have been set to goes 'belly up'.
If the decision was to not install proxy settings at all as part of the standard NTL install procedure then I would imagine an NTL page (or similar in places like this) that talks about things users can do to try and improve their Internet experience. I believe such 'pages' allready exist. These then could take unexperienced users through the process of setting up a proxy in IE, and the users could judge for themselves if it made browsing better or worse for them.
ATM moment some users, experienced or not, are having to regulary change their proxies or suffer (periodic) web browsing probelms. In a senario of otional proxies this either would not occur in the first place (if the default setup was no proxy settings) or would occur 'once' and be solved. This to me seems preferable to the current situation?
And for browsers/OSes other than I.E. / Windoze?
I would expect NTL to be able to talk users through changing their proxy setting on any platform they support. In reality this would be Windows and MAC (?). Presumably they already do this ? Once you get outside these 2 OS's then I suspect not only are the numbers of users small, they are also on the whole more technically literate and more than able to turn on or off the use of web proxies in their chosen browser.
Yes changing proxies can be intimadating to less technicaly literate users. Do I think this is a valid reason for NTL not making the use of proxies optional? Not really.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.