Topic 'Re: Google DNS versus ours' in forum 'TekSavvy' - dslreports.com

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:58:08 EDT

mikefallen posted :

Mine shows that Teksavvy is the fastest 25/10 dsl

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:38:33 EDT

brad posted :

said by d4m1r:

Fragment your online services people, keep your 3rd party DNS providers. Not saying I don't trust TSI with my DNS queries, but I like them to be handled by a 3rd party (and preferably offshore) instead.

I run my own. The last DNS servers I would ever truly trust would be 3rd party (especially Google, Level3 or OpenDNS).

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:09:13 EDT

highwire2007 posted : TSI's are still faster than the public DNS:

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:45:40 EDT

rjbrake posted : The farthest I'll go offshore is in a Dory. Lighten up you're not working for the CIA are ya?

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:31:30 EDT

d4m1r posted :

said by rjbrake:

It's a tinfoil hat mentality.

Does it make any less true? No. You might not care about your privacy, but I sure do.

Fragment your online services people, keep your 3rd party DNS providers. Not saying I don't trust TSI with my DNS queries, but I like them to be handled by a 3rd party (and preferably offshore) instead.
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:19:53 EDT

EdT posted : OpenDNS is adware directed, doesn't really conforms to the a proper DNS service protocol.

From my testing two years back, Google DNS2 was consistently fastest followed by TSI's.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:56:24 EDT

DJRiful posted :

said by OTIS3:

I also had some issues with DNS yesterday. Honestly, I didn't bother to look into it too far. I ran namebench a number of times today. It consistently tells me google dns is better.

What about OpenDNS?
--
Teksavvy.com + 300GB Bandwidth awesomeness!

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:37:31 EDT

JeanInNepean posted : Here's what I'm seeing...
48.02ms for 206.248.154.22
48.26ms for 206.248.154.170
65.22ms for 8.8.4.4

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:52:16 EDT

OTIS3 posted : I also had some issues with DNS yesterday. Honestly, I didn't bother to look into it too far. I ran namebench a number of times today. It consistently tells me google dns is better.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:35:39 EDT

TSI Martin posted :

said by NOTORIOUS VR:

^^^ Funny, it's almost like you're trying to say that it's not TSI's fault.

Assuming as you did that this is what I meant, you are wrong. It could very well be us and if that's the case, then we must look into it.

On the other hand, can anyone else confirm the exact same thing as notorious vs or is everyone one using our DNS servers also having the same problem? I personally don't have this issue on both my DSL & Cable services.

Thanks,
Martin
--
TSI Martin (Escalations / Social Media) - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( �»TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
Follow me on Twitter : @TSIMartin

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:26:17 EDT

NOTORIOUS VR posted : ^^^ Funny, it's almost like you're trying to say that it's not TSI's fault.

Before finding this thread about you boasting about TSI's DNS speed I was using google's DNS' for years without issue... never having to do anything, no reloading, no slow downs.

After seeing the graphs posted I decided to give it a shot... I didn't notice a speed difference, but it was working fine so I left it.

Not even a week later today the WEB was CRAWLING slow even though speed tests and actual ping rates were fine... I changed back from TSI DNS to google and what do ya know problem went away instantly.

Bottom line is, I shouldn't have to "flush" anything if the DNS servers are working correctly.

FWIW, tsicustomer (anon) was my post above.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:59:38 EDT

TSI Martin posted : wouldn't flushing your dns cache be useful in a situation like this?

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:56:12 EDT

anon posted : So I switched to TSI's "new" DNS's about a week ago when I stumbled upon this thread. Everything was going well until today when I noticed websites were taking forever to load/find... even just trying to ping a host would take some time before it initiated the ping..

Switched back to googles DNS and everything immediately became fast again.

So much for TSI's "super fast" DNS servers I guess...

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:31:43 EDT

brad posted : That's exactly what I was thinking when I replied.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 08:16:40 EDT

rjbrake posted : It's a tinfoil hat mentality.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:04:04 EDT

brad posted :

said by d4m1r:

said by TSI Gabe:

1) using a third party DNS provider doesn't fragment your DNS.

No, but it does fragment a users overall internet traffic to several different providers. History of internet traffic to 1 provider, and history of DNS requests to another, for example.

Still not making any sense.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:09:30 EDT

d4m1r posted :

said by TSI Gabe:

1) using a third party DNS provider doesn't fragment your DNS.

No, but it does fragment a users overall internet traffic to several different providers. History of internet traffic to 1 provider, and history of DNS requests to another, for example.
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:00:44 EDT

OTIS3 posted : Being a downed CC customer, this is a good opportunity for TSI boast their DR capabilities. What happens to tektalk when the datacenter is flooded out?

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:48:42 EDT

Guspaz posted : To the people earlier in this thread that were advocating CallCentric, perhaps you should reconsider:

CallCentric is down. Because ConEd cut the power to lower Manhattan. And CallCentric doesn't have any backup generators. Or a backup facility.

Basically, they have no redundancy, no backups, no contingency plans. Can you really trust your telephone service to such demonstrated gross incompetence?

Otakuthon's server is in New Jersey, which is suffering far more damage than NYC. Our server's datacenter has no power. Our server is still running just fine...

I did take a precaution and cloned our server to a location in California just in case, but so far haven't needed that.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:16:03 EDT

TSI Martin posted : 206.248.154.22 ; 170

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:03:55 EDT

KPaul posted : What are the dns #'s for SW Ontario?

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:15:48 EDT

rjbrake posted : question: is 2607:f2c0::1 also set up for akami?

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:34:04 EDT

TSI Gabe posted : I'll be honest...both your concerns don't really make sense to me.

1) using a third party DNS provider doesn't fragment your DNS.
2) OpenDNS doesn't have CDN...it's just a DNS service. We are the ones providing you with connectivity to Akamai through TorIX and I can assure you that we have *plenty* of capacity there.
--
TSI Gabe - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:00:46 EDT

d4m1r posted : Anyone more knowledgeable able to address my previously outlined concerns?

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:44:56 EDT

Guspaz posted : Indeed. The correct challenge to the two points are:

1) Paranoia
2) Nonsense
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:53:22 EDT

brad posted :

said by d4m1r:

Was hoping someone from TSI would challenge me on these points :)

I know I'm offtopic now because it's not related to voip but....

It might be worth challenging if there was any merit to it. The first point is nonsense and the second point is factually incorrect and doesn't make any sense.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:43:44 EDT

DJRiful posted :

said by OTIS3:

I'm also on the pay as you go with CallCentric. I pay $1.95 for my DID, $1.50 for E911, and most calling is about $0.015 per minute. Most months costs me about $5. I prepay with paypal on my account usually $50 and lasts at least a year, so its also one more bill I dont have to think about. They will send me an email when the balance in my account is low.

Also, as others have mentioned, the customer portal is really good. The amount of options is great. Rarely do I get telemarketers or credit cards scams calling, but if they do, its only 30 seconds to add them to a block list.

I'm paying $30 per year on Nettalk... unlimited Canada and US including all 911 and voice record services, caller ID.. etc...
--
Teksavvy.com + 300GB Bandwidth awesomeness!

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:39:05 EDT

d4m1r posted :

said by d4m1r:

Interesting and thanks for the information....

However, it is still always better to use a 3rd party DNS service anyway (even at a slight ms hit) because;

1) Privacy reasons. You want to fragment your services as much as possible.

2) Larger DNS providers like OpenDNS have larger CDN networks in place than a local ISP running a few Akamai servers.

Just my 2 cents....

Was hoping someone from TSI would challenge me on these points :)

I know I'm offtopic now because it's not related to voip but....
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:16:44 EDT

Walter Dnes posted : Gabe/Marc: could you guys please list your DNS servers at »TekSavvy FAQ and on your webpage? If you have separate servers for different parts of Canada, list them as well. This is basic stuff that should be on your webpage, along with VPI/VCI settings. I searched Google which turned up this thread, where I finally found your Ontario server addresses.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:20:35 EDT

Guru posted : Just showing off!

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:53:57 EDT

TwiztedZero posted :

said by rjbrake:

I was going to say good luck finding my IP, then I realized who it was .

but alas, I'm behind over 9000 firewalls lol.

Nine thousand firewalls, Holy "F" are you China?
Do you have extreme paranoia? :P
Are they really out to get you?
How did you get all those firewalls to play nice with one another? IMHO a single firewall/vnp appliance is quite sufficient for a home setup, maybe even overkill depending on your POV.
Alas I'm sure you jest, and my leg got pulled and you need to stop working for the alphabet soup spechul forces brigade up at teh North Pole. Really. :p
• If however, you're a lawyer or are somehow affiliated with the MPAA or RIAA factions - then Doom on you. :p

--
You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.
Twitter:Merv Chat:irc.teksavvy.ca

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:20:18 EDT

rjbrake posted : I was going to say good luck finding my IP, then I realized who it was .

but alas, I'm behind over 9000 firewalls lol.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:03:40 EDT

TSI Martin posted : hmmmm....

Challenge Considered

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:55:35 EDT

rjbrake posted : I run my own, private, caching nameserver on my LAN. Bind 9 + Trusted Solaris + Containers = Good LUCK hacking into it!

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:19:05 EDT

Guru posted : So this thread has turned from DNS to VOIP now?

** Their website works perfectly fine for me too!

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:30:02 EDT

neko posted : Perhaps the problem is on your end, as their website is fully functional for me, & I assume others.
--
...virtue gives you heraldry.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:07:53 EDT

rjbrake posted : Their website is lacking any functionality, products or ordering. They also have multiple 404 errors on their site. Not very promising at this point. Even though it's only 5$ they should still try and sell their product a bit better.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:30:15 EDT

OTIS3 posted : I'm also on the pay as you go with CallCentric. I pay $1.95 for my DID, $1.50 for E911, and most calling is about $0.015 per minute. Most months costs me about $5. I prepay with paypal on my account usually $50 and lasts at least a year, so its also one more bill I dont have to think about. They will send me an email when the balance in my account is low.

Also, as others have mentioned, the customer portal is really good. The amount of options is great. Rarely do I get telemarketers or credit cards scams calling, but if they do, its only 30 seconds to add them to a block list.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:36:06 EDT

neko posted : I'm on PAYG, too. About $5 every month.

Their back-end portal is fantastic with the call filtering options to prevent spam, re-route calls, free incoming/outgoing SIP, free voicemail. The list of features is outstanding.

My favorite feature is the call filtering. They even support wilcard numbers which add a granularity to the service that I find very useful.

They are rated as the best VOIP provider on DSLR.
--
...virtue gives you heraldry.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:26:35 EDT

wally_walrus posted : No package at all - I pay by the minute (only for what I use), and - BEST THING - the balance never expires

Their rates are at callcentric.com

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:50:02 EDT

TSI Marc posted : What package are you getting from them?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:26:57 EDT

wally_walrus posted : All PAYG for the last month:

Total: 289 min 0 min 141 min $5.5818 $0.0000 $5.5818

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:09:37 EDT

TSI Marc posted : What are you paying with them?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:09:19 EDT

TSI Marc posted : We have all we need to do business phone... Expanded the MetaSwitch a month ago to do it.. Just playing around with it all to see what we'd like to offer.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:59:41 EDT

wally_walrus posted : Marc,

When your prices and service are going to match Callcentric's I'll switch in an instant

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:58:22 EDT

Guspaz posted : Well, TekTalk is a residential service, and ClearCable is an enterprise service provider, so they're not really comparable products.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:34:18 EDT

TSI Marc posted : Gabe, what I don't understand is how come they're not signing up for our TekTalk service? :p
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:51:10 EDT

brad posted :

said by mlord:

Callcentric.com needs to do better.

No, they don't. It's BYOD. You are responsible if you want to bring broken equipment to their service. If you want to use broken crap then you can support it.

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:05:15 EDT

brad posted : *sad Mac face* kinda disappointed to see TSI's resolvers failing OARC's DNS reply size test.

Boo Google and OpenDNS.

TSI
$ dig @206.248.154.22 +short rs.dns-oarc.net txt
rst.x1002.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x1007.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x1012.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x1257.x1012.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x1228.x1012.rs.dns-oarc.net.

Level 3
$ dig @4.2.2.2 +short rs.dns-oarc.net txt
rst.x3827.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x3837.x3827.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x3843.x3837.x3827.rs.dns-oarc.net.
"192.221.139.217 DNS reply size limit is at least 3843"
"192.221.139.217 sent EDNS buffer size 4096"
"Tested at 2012-10-22 21:01:17 UTC"

home; dnsmasq -> BIND 9.9 (DNS64) -> my Unbound recursive resolver
$ dig @192.168.3.2 +short rs.dns-oarc.net txt
rst.x3827.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x4049.x3827.rs.dns-oarc.net.
rst.x4055.x4049.x3827.rs.dns-oarc.net.
"2001:470:1d:8c::13 DNS reply size limit is at least 4055"
"Tested at 2012-10-22 21:01:58 UTC"
"2001:470:1d:8c::13 sent EDNS buffer size 4096"

Re: Google DNS versus ours

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:52:28 EDT

mlord posted : +1