|
to n1zuk
Re: Updated Server Listsaid by n1zuk:Two separate issues -- -- The list at the top of this thread is already outdated. Right now, the VT proxy servers are identified with two different set of names: The old names -- newyork-1.vtnoc.net newyork-2.vtnoc.net... And the new names -- newyork-1a.vtnoc.net newyork-1b.vtnoc.net... There has been no official word how (or even if) these map directly to each other; if one set or the other gets DNS updated regularly, how one (or both) may/may not be dynamically updated (for us BYOD users). As I stated earlier in this topic, VT's a,b,c,... naming scheme uses aliases that point to the real records for the SIP proxy servers. They can be configured to point to different records much easier than the old method. Currently, VT instructs DNS servers to cache the information for 30 minutes. Additionally, home router-based DNS proxies usually only caches the Address record (the IP address) and not the CNAME record (where the alias points to). As a result, your router would most likely get a fresh response from your ISP's name server and if the the target of the aliases is the same, then your router will return the IP address immediately from cache. This is an easy one to remedy. Choose one naming convention, and sunset the other after notifying all users, both BYOD and VT supplied ATA users of the sunset date.
Brendan has already given you the VT "stamp-of-approved" list of machines. The old SIP proxy server names should not be used...even if they still resolve to IP addresses. -- The second has to do with properly doing a manual trace route to VT's proxy servers. VT operates their own DNS servers, to allow them to dynamically reroute calls from proxy servers that aren't operating properly. It takes time (hours) before that information propagates down through other DNS servers (ISP, OpenDNS, Level3, etc.).
As I stated earlier, VT currently sets the TTL of both the CNAME and A resource records to 30 minutes. Most VT customers have the VT DNS server loaded into their ATA, and a different DNS server for their computers.
Let us say I want to determine which proxy server (newyork-1.vtnoc.net, newyork-2.vtnoc.net, rchmond-1.vtnoc.net, etc.) will give me the best service (lowest ping time and least number of hops). I would do a trace route to analyze this information.
The problem becomes that the DNS server my computer queries may not have the same information that VT's DNS server has. One may point to one IP address, the other to a different address. This was quite true a few weeks ago, when servers were going up and down very often. (BTW, this is when one would most likely be looking for a new, working server).
Know your tools. Most likely, the OS you are using has a command line program like nslookup. You can use that to send the DNS query directly to VT's nameservers and get the IP address back. You can then traceroute to the IP address. Kill4Speed just posted a Windows batch script that uses nslookup. It can be easily modified to work as a shell script for Mac OS-X or Unix. See ya... d.c. |
actions · 2007-Jul-24 12:24 am · (locked) |
|
My signup/account verification email, which came about 5 days ago, says to use the Newyork-2.vtnoc.net server as my SIP proxy. Are you saying that is no longer valid and I should change the name now? I would think/hope that VT would alert BYOD users to change their server names if that were the case. Imagine if I never came to this forum and never saw this particular thread. How would I know? |
actions · 2007-Jul-24 3:15 am · (locked) |
n1zukmaking really tiny tech things Premium Member join:2001-10-24 Malta |
n1zuk
Premium Member
2007-Jul-24 5:21 am
Good point, LottaMoxie. The old server conventions are also used on ViaTalk's Softphone Config screen on the control panel.
Which should one believe has the official "stamp-of-approval", the one where people receive their configurations, or from a post to a 3rd party forum? |
actions · 2007-Jul-24 5:21 am · (locked) |
1 edit |
to n1zuk
Hi, N1ZUK!
Thanks for the explanation, but we're still not quite in sync. You do realize that routing has nothing to do with hostnames, and that it is based solely on IP address (and link states)? As a consequence, as long as you look up the target hostname using VT's name server (with three different example commands listed in this thread), the traceroute command will give you the exact same routing pattern, regardless of which name server is accessed by the traceroute program itself.
Now, if we were talking about email routing, that'd be a different story, since email routing is indeed controlled by DNS, but for SIP/RTP, IP is all that's required. So, other than performing that initial hostname lookup using VT's DNS, there's no need to reconfigure your PC's DNS selection.
Cheers! MarkF |
actions · 2007-Jul-24 10:22 am · (locked) |
4 edits |
to n1zuk
I'm new to Viatalk and BYOD so forgive me for my ignorance on the more technical aspects of VOIP.
I noticed as I did my BYOD setup that although both San Francisco and San Jose are geographically closer to me Houston always had better ping times. I was getting about 50-60 average for SF and SJ but consistently under 30 for Houston. I've setup my adapter with Houston based on these results. Am I doing this right? This is based on doing a Windows Command Prompt ping and Visual Route Lite. |
actions · 2007-Jul-25 1:25 pm · (locked) |
|
said by tyoung88:I noticed as I did my BYOD setup that although both San Francisco and San Jose are geographically closer to me Houston always had better ping times. I was getting about 50-60 average for SF and SJ but consistently under 30 for Houston. I've setup my adapter with Houston based on these results. Am I doing this right? Sounds right to me. Remember internet routing frequently doesn't go in a straight line. So what location is closest "as the crow flies" is often not the same location that is closest on the internet links. So yes, checking your ping times (along with packet losses, if any) and choosing the server that works best from that standpoint is the "right" approach. So what you are doing is what you should be doing. BTW: In my case, I found that the VT servers in Chicago were best for me, because my ISP apparently sends most "non-local traffic" via the big internet switching centers in Chicago (at least that's what tracert commands to various places I've tried to reach seem to show). So even though some of the other VT servers might be technically closer to me (in physical distance), the VT Chicago servers consistently give me the best results (due to the details of how my ISP routes internet traffic). However, since these routing details depend upon which ISP you are using, and sometimes even which part of the ISP's network you are on, you really do have to use "ping", "tracert", etc, to know which server will work best in your particular case. |
actions · 2007-Jul-25 1:36 pm · (locked) |
|
to tyoung88
i live in SF Bay area and ping time for San Jose and San Francisco Server is 80-90ms range and houston is 60ms !! so I chose houston too. |
actions · 2007-Jul-25 1:46 pm · (locked) |
|
hardly Premium Member join:2004-02-10 USA |
to abaldish
tracert to San Jose and San Francisco indicate that those FQDN's are currently pointed to Chicago. Has not always been the case. |
actions · 2007-Jul-25 1:48 pm · (locked) |
|
That would explain things Maybe those servers are under repair. Does anyone know if there are currently any operational VT servers on the West Coast? |
actions · 2007-Jul-25 1:57 pm · (locked) |
TexasPlusDon't Blame Me I Voted For The American Premium Member join:2004-06-16 Bedford, TX |
to VTBrendan
said by VTBrendan:Hey, This is a list of the currently available server groups on our network. newyork-1a.vtnoc.net richmond-1a.vtnoc.net richmond-1b.vtnoc.net houston-1a.vtnoc.net houston-1b.vtnoc.net chicago-1a.vtnoc.net chicago-1b.vtnoc.net chicago-1c.vtnoc.net chicago-1d.vtnoc.net chicago-1e.vtnoc.net chicago-1f.vtnoc.net chicago-1g.vtnoc.net* sanjose-1a.vtnoc.net* sanfrancisco-1a.vtnoc.net* The groups with asterisk's next to them are currently undergoing upgrades and/or repairs. Any of these groups should be more than capable of providing quality service to any of our customers. -Brendan VTBrendan and Forum Mods Can we please get a current list of ViaTalk servers posted as a sticky? It would save a lot of searching time for folks. Thanks! |
actions · 2007-Aug-27 1:05 pm · (locked) |
VTBrendanViatalk Premium Member join:2005-06-27 Clifton Park, NY |
This is a list of the currently available server groups on our network.
newyork-1a.vtnoc.net* newyork-1b.vtnoc.net richmond-1a.vtnoc.net richmond-1b.vtnoc.net houston-1a.vtnoc.net houston-1b.vtnoc.net chicago-1a.vtnoc.net chicago-1b.vtnoc.net chicago-1c.vtnoc.net chicago-1d.vtnoc.net chicago-1e.vtnoc.net chicago-1f.vtnoc.net chicago-1g.vtnoc.net chicago-1h.vtnoc.net* chicago-1i.vtnoc.net* chicago-1j.vtnoc.net* sanjose-1a.vtnoc.net* sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net sanfrancisco-1a.vtnoc.net*
The groups with asterisk's next to them are currently undergoing upgrades and/or repairs. Any of these groups should be more than capable of providing quality service to any of our customers.
-Brendan |
actions · 2007-Aug-27 5:11 pm · (locked) |
2 edits |
said by VTBrendan:This is a list of the currently available server groups on our network. newyork-1a.vtnoc.net* newyork-1b.vtnoc.net richmond-1a.vtnoc.net richmond-1b.vtnoc.net houston-1a.vtnoc.net houston-1b.vtnoc.net chicago-1a.vtnoc.net chicago-1b.vtnoc.net chicago-1c.vtnoc.net chicago-1d.vtnoc.net chicago-1e.vtnoc.net chicago-1f.vtnoc.net chicago-1g.vtnoc.net chicago-1h.vtnoc.net* chicago-1i.vtnoc.net* chicago-1j.vtnoc.net* sanjose-1a.vtnoc.net* sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net sanfrancisco-1a.vtnoc.net* The groups with asterisk's next to them are currently undergoing upgrades and/or repairs. Any of these groups should be more than capable of providing quality service to any of our customers. -Brendan So are all of these in their respective locations or do some names route to machines in other locations? I don't believe richmond-1a has actually been routed to a richmond server for some time. Also, newyork-1b, chicago-1h, chicago-1i, chicago-1j, sanjose-1b don't seem to resolve (I realize some of these you listed as being down). |
actions · 2007-Aug-27 5:37 pm · (locked) |
chas3 join:2004-12-03 Dallastown, PA 2 edits |
to VTBrendan
I've been using newyork-2.vtnoc.net is this an acceptable server? I see this was talked about in this thread, but, how about an official response from VT. Also, the control panel under generic softphone config, list the -2 servers. In fact, it does not list any of the 1a or 1b server names.
I can't ping newyork-1b.vtnoc.net |
actions · 2007-Aug-28 9:41 am · (locked) |
TexasPlusDon't Blame Me I Voted For The American Premium Member join:2004-06-16 Bedford, TX |
to abaldish
bump |
actions · 2007-Sep-1 2:57 am · (locked) |
psevge Premium Member join:2004-08-28 Santa Clara, CA |
to VTBrendan
Comcast's DNS server cannot resolve sanjose-1b
[root@asterisk1 ~]# ping sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net ping: unknown host sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net
sanjose-2 resolves to 66.225.245.186 (using comcast)
Using opendns, sanjose-1b resolves to 208.67.219.137
Brendan, before publishing the servers, shouldn't you at least make sure they are populated in DNS, never mind if it works or not ? |
actions · 2007-Sep-1 12:33 pm · (locked) |
hardly Premium Member join:2004-02-10 USA |
hardly
Premium Member
2007-Sep-1 5:49 pm
Sounds like a Comcast problem to me. |
actions · 2007-Sep-1 5:49 pm · (locked) |
psevge Premium Member join:2004-08-28 Santa Clara, CA |
psevge
Premium Member
2007-Sep-1 6:13 pm
Not really, even VT's DNS servers don't know anything about sanjose-1b
[root@asterisk1 ~]# dig @dns1.hrnoc.net sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net
; > DiG 9.2.4 > @dns1.hrnoc.net sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8141 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;sanjose-1b.vtnoc.net. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: vtnoc.net. 1800 IN SOA dns1.hrnoc.net. hostmaster.hrnoc.net. 2005096058 600 3600 2419200 3600
;; Query time: 130 msec ;; SERVER: 216.120.225.19#53(216.120.225.19) ;; WHEN: Sat Sep 1 15:10:23 2007 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96 |
actions · 2007-Sep-1 6:13 pm · (locked) |