Bitching (Re: [oclug] Sympatico ADSL and y.k.w.)

[Dave Lewis]

I'll second istop's "unreliablity"

I had them for over a year.  For my purposes I wanted they're non-pppoe 
bridged service.
I had it installed at my girlfriends place before I moved in.

It was "ok" before I moved in, at that time mainly she used it to just 
surf. Once I moved in and had
my rack moved and started using it for my hosting and stuff the problems 
were more evident.

Once the problems arised, the stemmed from the following

1) Istop's routers having numerous problems, including they're "linux" 
router failing to swich over and traffic failing.
             a linux router for an isp.  I love my linux box's and the 
routing isn't bad but there is something about
             using it inplace of where a proper hardware router should be 
that just doesn't make any sense..

2) They're peer failing.  <--- this one was the big one...I lost count on 
how much they're peer failed
           They switched peers.. didn't matter still failed.. Usually at 
night when they're support was no where
            to be found.

3) Unexplained bandwidth and customers on my link.  I was paying for a 
dedicated segment with 5 ip's (/29) however
      I seemed to  gain another 10 customers over the period I was with 
them into my arp table and
      on odd days I'd hit over 20gig hitting my interface that wasn't meant 
for me.   the first time it happened
      they fixed it.. the second the owner told me to go read a book.  Once 
it was even they're own mail server.. I sat there
      and said, how can you possibly keep making this config error over and 
over..   Oh and let's not forget my discussion
      with they're 1st line support who told me that there was no way 
anyone could be on my segment because this was dsl
      and my modem would loose sync if there was.  I ask you.. I know he's 
first line.. but STILL.. some common sense and
       brains please :)

4)  24x7 paging.   does not exist.    first of all.. it's an email address. 
when they're peer drops you can't email them...
      assuming you bug them and get the phone number for the cell that 
they're using it will be off. or the number
      will have changed.   any which way you take it you never hear back 
from them on a priority page.

I argued this problem with they're president (along with item 3) and he 
told me basically to take a leap.  he said the paging
was not a problem. it was adequate (dispite the fact that I was actually 
paying for that service) and that the problem
with the arp table was not a problem.. since all his non-pppoe customers 
terminate from bell on the same VLAN.
To me this is a problem. ISTOP has the decision as to what vlan stuff 
terminates on.. each non-pppoe customer
should be on they're own vlan.  that's life and that's normal. if they put 
them on the same for ease of config or routing thats
not my problem. You cannot guarantee my data at that point.  anyone could 
spoof me from istop's own network.  I even proved
it by taking another guys' subnet and picking an ip he wasn't using and 
added it to my connection.. worked like a charm.

I've heard many people say istop is ok if you know what your doing and can 
troubleshoot the problem yourself.  I work for Bell.
I support a $100 million bgp/mpls network. I don not call my provider till 
I know it's his problem.  And even when I proved it
to them, several times it came down to the fact that it meant work for them 
or an admittance of them being wrong and at that
point they told me that they didn't have time to teach me routing or 
troubleshooting.

So you can add me to the list who says istop is unreliable, and I feel with 
very good reason :)


Dave

At 04:17 PM 6/26/2004, you wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:07:29 -0400
>Patrick Smith <patsmith at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Brad Barnett wrote:
> > > Charlie Brady <charlieb-oclug at budge.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > >>>>FWIW, I use istop.com and find their service reliable enough to
> > >>>>telework.
> > >
> > > Since you state that you find istop to be reliable, then there are
> > > only three possible reasons you could believe so.
> > >
> > > 1) you are incompetent, and are unable to tell when istop is not
> > > working or / and
> > > 2) you do not use istop frequently, therefore you do not realise how
> > > unreliable they are
> > > or / and
> > > 3) you have not used istop for long, therefore you do not realise how
> > > unreliable they are
> >
> > 4) Charlie's definition of "reliable enough to telework" is different
> > from yours of "reliable".
>
>See #1, 2 and 3.
>
> > 5) There is some technical difference in the two connections to Istop,
> > such that you see more problems than Charlie does.  E.g. a faulty piece
> > of equipment somewhere in your connection.
>
>No, there isn't.  As previously stated multiple times in this thread,
>issues outside of istop are not counted.
>
> > 6) Through some statistical fluke, Charlie has mostly connected when
> > there weren't any problems happening.
>
>This falls under frequency and length of use.  Such flukes quickly move
>towards zero when 2 and 3 of my points are addressed.
>
> > 7) There are patterns in IStop's problems and the ways you and Charlie
> > use IStop such that you are more likely than Charlie to encounter these
> > problems.
>
>No.  See my previous statement.
>
> >
> > I'm sure others with more imagination than I have could extend this list
> > further...
>
>Please try.
>
> >
> > > Since istop _is_ unreliable, one or some of the conditions above must
> > > be applicable in your particular case.  That is, I don't need to know
> > > anything about you, other than the fact that you state istop is
> > > reliable, in order to draw the conclusions above.
> >
> > If you want to have a conversation above the level of "is not" "is too"
> > "is not" "is too", you might perhaps consider the possibility that other
> > people have actually had experiences different from yours.
>
>That comes under frequency of use, or length of use.
>
> >
> > FWIW, I have been mostly (not entirely) satisfied with IStop.
>
>Therefore, you understand what I am referring to.  However, we are not
>talking about satisfaction (for example, Ray has stated he is happy with a
>buggy connection).  We are talking about the quality of the link.  Some
>people are happy with an unstable connection.  As long as they realise
>that istop falls in this bracket, that's all I care about.  Informed
>choice.
>
>--
>OCLUG general discussion list
>OCLUG at lists.oclug.on.ca
>http://www.oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug