Hi
Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL? As I saw, my router can¹t resolve any domains... Lucky I got some other dns servers =)
Cheers, Benjamin
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 20:16, Benjamin Schlageter b.schlageter@ebm.ch wrote:
Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL? As I saw, my router can’t resolve any domains... Lucky I got some other dns servers =)
Same here, also receiving IMs from other swisscom customers telling me that "their internet is broken".
regards
Flavio
I don't KNOW anything about it, but I am experiencing the same here, since about one hour. Some sites respond well, others not or only very shaky or partial.
DNS query time between 500-700ms.
I particularly like how bluewin is capable of presenting me a NICE and easy-to-find status page of their service - NOT. stone age or what?
regards, Umbi
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:16:14 +0100 Von: Benjamin Schlageter b.schlageter@ebm.ch An: swinog@lists.swinog.ch Betreff: [swinog] Bluewin DNS problems
Hi
Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL? As I saw, my router can¹t resolve any domains... Lucky I got some other dns servers =)
Cheers, Benjamin
Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL?
No: Bluewin-DNS is fine for me. But i had some ADSL problems on 2-3. Jan: I had about ~30% packet loss with any (?) gateway in 195.186.252.0/24.
Re-Connecting until i got a gateway in the 253-range fixed the problem for me
Regards, Adrian
Which of them do you use? 195.186.1.162 and 195.186.4.162 don't answer me on dig... And these one uses my router.
Am 04.01.10 20:40 schrieb "Adrian Ulrich" unter swinog@blinkenlights.ch:
Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL?
No: Bluewin-DNS is fine for me. But i had some ADSL problems on 2-3. Jan: I had about ~30% packet loss with any (?) gateway in 195.186.252.0/24.
Re-Connecting until i got a gateway in the 253-range fixed the problem for me
Regards, Adrian
Hi,
Same issue here with these two DNS servers as DSL customer. Thanks to google we got easy to type/remember Backup dns servers 8.8.8.8
-Romain
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Benjamin Schlageter b.schlageter@ebm.ch wrote:
Which of them do you use? 195.186.1.162 and 195.186.4.162 don't answer me on dig... And these one uses my router.
hi all
yes, there are currently problems related with BW DNS. techies are working on it...
greetz
-steven
Am 04.01.2010 um 21:06 schrieb Romain Bourdy achileos@gmail.com:
Hi,
Same issue here with these two DNS servers as DSL customer. Thanks to google we got easy to type/remember Backup dns servers 8.8.8.8
-Romain
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Benjamin Schlageter <b.schlageter@ebm.ch
wrote: Which of them do you use? 195.186.1.162 and 195.186.4.162 don't answer me on dig... And these one uses my router.
swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Hi,
It seems the Swiss POP for sixxs (IPv6 connectivity) is unreachable from Cablecom (net2000), Sunrise ADSL, Bluewin ADSL, but is reachable from Green ADSL.
For the records, http://www.sixxs.net/) is where you can get free IPv6 on IPv4 tunnels when your ISP hasn't yet arranged for IPv6 end-user delivery (most don't).
It used to be reachable in november 2009 when I did my last tests, on Cablecom (net2000).
The IP address of the POP is: 194.1.163.40
Looks like this is a /24 (PI) within IP-MAN's AS.
Does anyone has an idea why it is not routed correctly ? (SIXXS is working on it, however, what's behind the scene interests me).
Is this because it's a lone /24, and most providers don't peer correctly for less than /22 ? An administrative problem (like when EUnet was routed through Amsterdam for SWITCH customers -- well at least it was routed!)
Or is it because IP-MAN wants direct peering and doesn't announce the prefix globally ? Maybe to avoid being charged by strange peering plans ?
Thanks ;) have a nice new year 2010!
PS: I am especially interested because I am considering to route a old /24 from a /15 (allocation unspecified) somehow, and want to see if it is really usually unfeasible from a global routing perspective, or from the practical quirks of commercial operators today.
Hoi Marc,
pim@sixxs.net here :)
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Marc SCHAEFER schaefer@alphanet.ch wrote:
Hi,
It seems the Swiss POP for sixxs (IPv6 connectivity) is unreachable from Cablecom (net2000), Sunrise ADSL, Bluewin ADSL, but is reachable from Green ADSL.
It is unreachable for any ISP which does not peer with IP-Man at TIX or CIXP (or other exchanges like AMS-IX and SFINX). See below for rationale.
It used to be reachable in november 2009 when I did my last tests, on Cablecom (net2000). Does anyone has an idea why it is not routed correctly ?
I beg to differ an opinion: it is routed correctly. :)
Is this because it's a lone /24, and most providers don't peer correctly for less than /22 ? An administrative problem (like when EUnet was routed through Amsterdam for SWITCH customers -- well at least it was routed!)
It's not an administrative problem, it's a purposeful configuration.
Or is it because IP-MAN wants direct peering and doesn't announce the prefix globally ?
This is the reason - it is only announced to peers, not to transit providers. One obvious way to reach it is to start peering with IP-Man at one of the IXPs at which they are present. I, too, am a cablecom subscriber and I do not have access to the machines either from home - I have to hop over to another network first, one that peers with IP-Man.
Maybe to avoid being charged by strange peering plans ?
Well, it's to avoid being DDoSed to hell and back[tm]. There is an EFnet server (irc.efnet.ch) and an IRCnet server (ircnet.ipng.ch) and a well known tunnelbroker (chzrh01.sixxs.net) in that /24 - and all of them are packet magnets, unfortunately :(
PS: I am especially interested because I am considering to route a old /24 from a /15 (allocation unspecified) somehow, and want to see if it is really usually unfeasible from a global routing perspective, or from the practical quirks of commercial operators today.
I can confirm (as owner of that /24) that there was never a problem announcing it, and it used to be globally visible. Now, it is in a gray area, and purposefully not visible worldwide.
If you have a /24 you should be generally accepted by most every ISP out there, as far as breaking aggregation of your /15, I cannot comment (but I say: go for it)
groet, Pim
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:25:42PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote:
If you have a /24 you should be generally accepted by most every ISP out there, as far as breaking aggregation of your /15, I cannot comment (but I say: go for it)
It's not mine, unfortunately. But I am working with the owner to find a good solution. For reference, look at 193.72.186.0 in the WHOIS :)
Thank you for the precize answer on this "peering-only" routing. I have now asked both of my current service providers (namely net2000 and sunrise) to look into peering.
Pity, it's going to be a pain for Youporn stats tonight. Can't seem to find out anything on Swisscom or IP-Plus website.
- Simon
2010/1/4 Benjamin Schlageter b.schlageter@ebm.ch
Hi
Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL? As I saw, my router can’t resolve any domains... Lucky I got some other dns servers =)
Cheers, Benjamin
swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[ I've already sent this to our colleagues at Swisscom, but this should really go to the list ]
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:16:14 +0100, Benjamin Schlageter b.schlageter@ebm.ch said:
Hi Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL? As I saw, my router can¹t resolve any domains... Lucky I got some other dns servers =)
The perils of DNSSEC <sigh>. It was entirely our fault. Due to an error, lots of DNSSEC-related resource records (NSEC3 to be precise) were missing in the ch zone file generated shortly after 7pm last evening. Unfortunately, the error went undetected and the truncated zone was published.
The DNS caches of Bluewin have DNSSEC validation enabled for the ch TLD and probably started to produce SERVFAIL for most subdomains at this point (depending on whether they were already in the cache or not). The zone was fixed some time after 9pm.
Sincere appologies for any pain this has caused.
On 1/5/10 12:31 AM, Alexander Gall wrote:
[ I've already sent this to our colleagues at Swisscom, but this should really go to the list ]
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:16:14 +0100, Benjamin Schlageterb.schlageter@ebm.ch said:
Hi Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL? As I saw, my router can¹t resolve any domains... Lucky I got some other dns servers =)
The perils of DNSSEC<sigh>. It was entirely our fault. Due to an error, lots of DNSSEC-related resource records (NSEC3 to be precise) were missing in the ch zone file generated shortly after 7pm last evening. Unfortunately, the error went undetected and the truncated zone was published.
The DNS caches of Bluewin have DNSSEC validation enabled for the ch TLD and probably started to produce SERVFAIL for most subdomains at this point (depending on whether they were already in the cache or not). The zone was fixed some time after 9pm.
Sincere appologies for any pain this has caused.
Painful to say the least but thanks a lot for the honest and transparent report on what caused the issue.
Thomas
-
Adrian Ulrich -
Alexander Gall -
Benjamin Schlageter -
Flavio Tischhauser -
Marc SCHAEFER -
Pim van Pelt -
Romain Bourdy -
Simon Leins -
Steven.Glogger＠swisscom.com -
Thomas Kernen -
Umberto Annino