Cable Forum - [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Webspace, E-Mail & Browsing Issues (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=80)

- - [Merged] Manchester Proxies. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=9008)

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

I think it is nottingham proxies I am using but not fully sure.

IP is 62.254.0.38

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think it is nottingham proxies I am using but not fully sure. IP is 62.254.0.38

Yep, that's one of the Nottingham ones - but they have not been turned off for months :confused:

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

what? so my proxies were turned of for more than half a year because of maintenance?

I find that very hard to believe I think its more likely someone in upper management made a decision and they were turned on, higher costs if turned off?

so 34.99 1 mbit/1 gig a day traffic/proxy on-ntl

no they were turned off because they needed maintenance but there were other more critical jobs that needed doing first - ntl cant fix everything at the same time they need to allocate resources. so if something isn't vital (like proxies) then why not switch them off and fix something that needs to be fixed?

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

hey im not complaining they were turned off :)
its the fact they were turned on :(

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

its not a case of ntl forcing this on users without their permission - they are the ISP and they have always used proxies. if they are turned off then that is a maintainence issue. frankly ntl can and will force users to use proxies as long as it is a cost effective option for them. in other word they will do as they please.

Quote:

"they dont utilise their external bandwidth" beacuse the more we use the external bandwidth the more it costs them! if you want all the proxies turned off then you may find BB prices will go up or a pay per bandwidth billing is introduced, (maybe not a bad idea for those who want proxy-less web browsing)

Why does it cost more for ntl? Other ISP's are capable of offering proxyless capless connections for pretty much the same price as the ntl offering, give or take a few quid, so why can't ntl?

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntl customer

If you do not think ntl force them on their users, then why do we not have the options to turn them off as we please unlike other companies who allow users to choose whether they use proxies or not.

Even Telewest AFAIK who used to have forced proxies have turned them off and allowed users the choice as to whether they want to use them or not.

Why does it cost more for ntl? Other ISP's are capable of offering proxyless capless connections for pretty much the same price as the ntl offering, give or take a few quid, so why can't ntl?

it doesn't cost ntl anymore than another ISP of a similar size. what i am saying is they have to pay for the exta bandwidth used when proxies are not in use.

I would like the option not to use proxies. they are excellent for dial up connections and quite good for caching regularly used websites. I wouldn't mind if they were more reliable - although i have had few problems in the swansea area when they are on (they were off for some time last year)

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Is something really wrong with these proxies tonight?

mosts sites are timing out, i can make it to the web page now and again but trying to get into forums is hit and miss.

dunno if these tracerts bypass the proxies?

Quote:

Tracing route to nthellworld.co.uk [69.72.137.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 10.109.0.1
2 15 ms 23 ms 19 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan34-104.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.145]
3 13 ms 14 ms 30 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.169]
4 12 ms 26 ms 19 ms man-bb-b-so-210-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.61]
5 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

6 20 ms 18 ms 18 ms gfd-bb-b-so-500-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.130]

7 21 ms 21 ms 27 ms tele-ic-2-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.74]

8 23 ms 22 ms 20 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 91 ms 98 ms 90 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.209]
10 122 ms 132 ms * 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
11 96 ms 96 ms 105 ms 209.123.182.243
12 98 ms 88 ms 90 ms 69.57.170.3
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 ^C

Tracing route to www.thedvdforums.com [216.93.162.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 11 ms 11 ms 13 ms 10.109.0.1
2 13 ms 12 ms 14 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan34-104.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.145]
3 14 ms 17 ms 12 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.169]
4 15 ms 18 ms 13 ms man-bb-b-so-210-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.61]
5 18 ms 19 ms 19 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

6 27 ms 20 ms 19 ms gfd-bb-b-so-500-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.130]

7 22 ms 20 ms 28 ms gfd-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.5]
8 19 ms 21 ms 31 ms tele-ic-1-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.78]

9 95 ms 95 ms 96 ms lndnuk1icx1.wcg.net [195.66.224.105]
10 97 ms 96 ms 97 ms nycmny2wcx2-oc12.wcg.net [64.200.87.153]
11 95 ms 99 ms 95 ms nycmny2wcx3-oc48.wcg.net [64.200.87.78]
12 127 ms 118 ms 120 ms chcgil1wcx3-oc48.wcg.net [64.200.240.37]
13 118 ms 117 ms 117 ms brvwil1wcx2-pos11-0-1-a0.wcg.net [64.200.236.17]

14 144 ms 144 ms 144 ms dnvrco1wcx2-pos14-0.wcg.net [64.200.210.22]
15 168 ms 168 ms 170 ms snfcca1wcx3-pos11-0.wcg.net [64.200.240.94]
16 168 ms 167 ms 167 ms sntcca1lch2-pos4-1.wcg.net [64.200.240.222]
17 181 ms * 169 ms sntcca2lce2-yipes-gige.wcg.net [64.200.150.78]
18 162 ms 164 ms * border1-ge0-0-0.sfo.servepath.net [209.213.192.1
23]
19 159 ms 178 ms 158 ms access1-ge2-0-5.sfo.servepath.net [216.93.189.11
4]
20 170 ms 158 ms 156 ms customer-reverse-entry.216.93.162.3 [216.93.162.
3]

Trace complete.

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Strangely enough, one place I cannot reach tonight is Ntl Broadband Plus pages, the don't even time out, just instantly unavailable. I suppose I should be thankful that I am 3 months free trial, I would be miffed if I was paying the extra charge.

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

<Realists hat on>
Well if what I read a few posts back from BBKing is correct, ie NTL have added 6 more caches to the Manchester area, the chances that NTL are going to turn them off after such an investment is slim to none IMO. Us moaning about it is going to do nothing for the situation.
</Realists hat off>

I suggest we try to work with NTL (BBKing/BillC?) to work out the kinks. Granted not ideal but if we need to live with the proxies then lets at least get them working correctly :)

They say we should report the faults but where/how? If it's an 0845 number then no way will I participate as I am not paying for the priveledge of debugging NTL's system.

Can they arrange an alternate reporting method?

What Info do they want/need?

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foo Fighter

unfortunately tracert wont say much - as you correctly say they are not intercepted by the proxies as they run on a different port

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Thanks DVS for a thoughtful post. Unfortunately I work in a completely different part of ntl (home rather than networks) so my room for manoevre is limited. Hence me asking people to ring in and report problems, since if I mention that I think the caches are misbehaving and there are no reported browsing issues in the area, I look stupid, whereas if I mention it and it completes a picture that's beginning to emerge, it speeds up the diagnosis. Bill C, if th'eng hasn't completely peed him off, I think works in networks, but nowhere near the cache people. He does have his ear firmly to the ground in the NW though.

I don't know which number to ring, either, but it may indeed be the 0845 number, if you want to get through to Swansea. Would appreciate confirmation of this.

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

I did contact about the proxies the other week. I must say this week theyare behaving so no more problems for a while.. Will call if they happen again

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVS

What Info do they want/need?

I'm guessing that all they'd need is:

- your location
- your ip address
- the URL you are having problems with
- whether the URL works with a manually-specified proxy (aka one of:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d...cache.html#ntl)

That should be enough to show which redirector and proxy you're using.

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foo Fighter

Ping's and tracert's have very little in common with web browsing.

Web browsing uses a protocol called HTTP which is then transmitted using an IP protocol called TCP, this in turn uses a concept of "ports" and HTTP uses TCP Port 80. NTL's routers re-direct tcp80 to their proxy servers.

Ping and tracert use another IP protocol called ICMP - this does not have the concept of ports, nor is it intercepted by NTL - however it is often blocked by far end servers (hence timeouts).

Routers that respond to ping requests often only do so when they have nothing better to do - so they are not reliable measure of how well they are performing.

Maybe I should post a simple networking explanation as well - I'll see if I have time tonight.

Re: [Merged] Manchester Proxies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

the problem is 90% of webpages will work, just a lot slower.

As far as the average user is concerned this is not a problem so he/she will not ring up, a lot of user's may have only ever used ntl with the proxies on so they dont even have a experience of what it should be like.

Hence the lack of phone calls.