NTL's Poxy Proxies - Page 2

threadbare · 23-12-2003, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by erol

Not really. I genuinely believe that making the proxies optional for users would be of benefit to many users and of detriment to none. I am not sure a petition will achieve that, but I can not see how it could harm the ojective either.

no it wouldn't - see my earlier post

andygrif · 23-12-2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by threadbare

its not practical to allow everyone to choose their own proxies - it would screw up ntl's routing completely

More than it is already? You might be right, I'm no teccy, but I do know that something has to be done about it.

erol · 23-12-2003, 12:37

Personaly I do not think allowing those that want, to not have to use the proxies will increase NTL's cost.

Firstly external bandwidth is a small to tiny fraction of the overall cost of provision that NTL pays. Of course these figures can be argued about till the cows come home but I have sppent some considerable time doing my best to understand the costs of provision of BB in the UK.My belief / best estimate is that external bandwidth represents between 1-5% of the cost of provision for NTL.

Secondly any savings that NTL make on external bandwidth have to be balanced against the cost of the proxy sw and server and more importantly the cost of staff to maintain them and the cost in support dealing with customer problems caused by them. The cost of external bandwidth is falling at a vast rate (again you can argue about how much / how quickly forever - but it is falling year on year). The cost of staff to maintain the proxies and support staff is not falling anywhere near the same rate as external bandwidth. So even if they do save some money for NTL now they will not at some point.

As for not forcing people to use the proxies 'messing up' NTL's routing - this is just not so, at least as I understand things (and I am happy to have someone explain to me why / how it would if I have misunderstood it). Many ISPs do not use forced proxies and users are free to specify one or not as they choose (either the ISPs if they offer one or someone elses if they do not) and it does not mess up their routing at all.

It seems to me that 'asking' for the _option_ to not be forced to use these proxies is about as reasonable request as can be made. It would imo be good for customers and NTL.

There is one possible way in which such choice would affect users - those that did choose to use keep using the proxies. Assuming that less people decide to use them then for any given page request there is less chance the proxy will have that page cahced locally. So I accept there is some potnetial downside to users that want the NTL proxies. However I stil feel that overall giving users the option to use the proxies or not will result in net benefits over all , for both users and NTL

Mr.Moony · 23-12-2003, 12:54

This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).

I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.

Im starting a petition to not not user proxy servers. Yar.

**Chris** · 23-12-2003, 13:02

When my browsing goes belly-up (as it all too often does) I find that specifying a proxy manually in my Network Settings always puts things right. Presumably this means I am blessed by being one of the lucky ones living in an area where NTL is not using transparent proxies to 'over-ride' my own network settings?

Every time I start thinking I understand these issues, another dimension gets added and I'm floundering again!

**Paul M** · 23-12-2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Moony

This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).

I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.

Im starting a petition to not not user proxy servers. Yar.

Hmm, you're an NTL Tech ? In that case could you please explain to me how this will screw up "load balance" (indeed, load balance of what ?).

IMO it would not make most peoples browsing any slower [or faster] - but many would notice that they no longer get zero response (or stale pages) because the damn things don't work properly. Still - I'm willing to change my view if you can prove otherwise.

I would not attach much significance to the fact that you haven't taken a "proxy related" call in ages - like many people I haven't made one in ages but this doesn't alter the fact that they still fail regularly. Those who know enough to blame them also know how to change them.

Proxy servers are becoming more and more of a waste of time anyway as more and more sites are becoming dynamic rather than static so the proxy is still having to go and get the updated page everytime (except that NTL's often don't resulting in errors) - they are now just becoming itermediate, unneccessary, failure prone, repeaters.

erol · 23-12-2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Moony

This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).

I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.

With respect Mr Moony I suggest that the sheer volume of posts, here and elsewhere, whereby someones browsing speed or their ability to access certain sites hade been improved by 'changing their proxy', is compelling evidence that the NTL proxies cause considerable problems for some users. I would even go as far as suggesting that 'change your proxy' is one of the most common suggestions to users experiencing web problems AND one of the most effective solutions on all NTL help foriums. Townys below is just one more example of this.

If the proxies were truely 'transparent' then this issue of being forced to use them would not arise. There is ample and clear evidence that they are not transparent. The problems they cause through mis configuration and over loading are what leads to users 'moving proxies' all the time and thus creates the 'load balance' (for specific proxies) problems. If users could simply switch off the proxies all togeather. I suggest that those that remained using them would actualy get a better service through them and thus would not continuously 'move around' - thus helping load balance, not hinder it. Even if they did not get the result they wanted from their local proxy the response of just 'turning it off' seems to me more likely than 'moving to a different non local one' - again helping load balance - not hindering it.

Towny as I understand it you are forced to go via an NTL proxy. When you add the setting manualy you change the proxy from the 'default' one to an explicit different one. What I am suggesting is that NTL give you the option of not having to use one at all, if you do not wish to. Thus this constant 'finding a good proxy' issue would all but disapear and in turn help NTLs load balance (imo).

I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters and if I have mis understood the issue then I would welcome clarification.

threadbare · 23-12-2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by andygrif

More than it is already? You might be right, I'm no teccy, but I do know that something has to be done about it.

yes a h*ll of a lot more

erol · 23-12-2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by pem

Hmm, you're an NTL Tech ? In that case could you please explain to me how this will screw up "load balance" (indeed, load balance of what ?).

As I understand it (and again I may not understand it correctly) the 'load balance' issues fall into two areas.

Firstly the 'load' on a given proxy server. If regions A,B,C and D's proxies are all failing then users tend tpo move to region E's proxy server (in very simple terms). This in turn puts more load on region E's server and thus increases the chance that this proxy will become 'overloaded' or 'unbalanced'. However as I have argued above, giving users the option to just not use a proxy at all would mean imo, that if region A,B,C and D's proxies were 'playing up' then most users would simply turn off their local proxy, thus helping load problems on server E not hindering them.

The other area where 'load balancing' is a potential problem would be on the internal NTL network links between regions. In an example whereby many of region A's customers are using region E's proxy server, then more traffic passes between region A and region E than would if all of regions A's cutomers were using region A's proxy server (or not using a proxy server at all, if they had such a choice). I personally do not feel this is a valid argument against giving users the option of not being forced through an NTL proxy for the same reasons as the 'server load balance' argument above. In addition to this, it is my iunderstanding that NTL's national fiber network, that carries the traffic between regions, is not even remotely 'oveloaded' and even with the descrepancies caused by users using proxies not in their local region has vast amounts of unused capacity (unlike the local distribution network).

SMHarman · 23-12-2003, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Moony

This would screw up the load balance, cause more proxy related issues, increase network traffic, make browsing slow (although faster to some).

I havent taken a proxy related call in donkeys. Im sure allot of people on here look into things to deeply and blame the proxy servers because they know what it is. (well roughly). If it wasnt chache servers it would be something else.

Im starting a petition to not not user proxy servers. Yar.

Well one of your colleagues in Cardiff took a call from me last week.

When I can FTP without difficulty, connect to Demons POP servers without problem and download mail quickly, but find web browsing slow (in general and not on specific sites) then it's usually a proxy issue.

23-12-2003, 15:30

Proxy servers are usualy used to cut down the amount of load on the ISP's pipe. I cant see ntl ditching this as its there to save them from buying a bigger pipe.

Proxy's are allways problematic - we ended up ditching them at work after only 3 months !!!!

Ditch the proxy's I say !!!!

Mr.Moony · 23-12-2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by pem

Hmm, you're an NTL Tech ? In that case could you please explain to me how this will screw up "load balance" (indeed, load balance of what ?).

IMO it would not make most peoples browsing any slower [or faster] - but many would notice that they no longer get zero response (or stale pages) because the damn things don't work properly. Still - I'm willing to change my view if you can prove otherwise.

I would not attach much significance to the fact that you haven't taken a "proxy related" call in ages - like many people I haven't made one in ages but this doesn't alter the fact that they still fail regularly. Those who know enough to blame them also know how to change them.

Proxy servers are becoming more and more of a waste of time anyway as more and more sites are becoming dynamic rather than static so the proxy is still having to go and get the updated page everytime (except that NTL's often don't resulting in errors) - they are now just becoming itermediate, unneccessary, failure prone, repeaters.

Well for a start when the fastest Proxy servers in the country start to get unbalanced because every1 is using them constantly the people in the area using them transparently will notice a decrease in service (thought you would have got that one Pem). Not really load balance as such I shall have to agree. The time it will take for the proxy servers to respond to requested urls will get slower and slower and then finaly die.
There are other options around the problems, for instance nthw.com had different meta rules and seemed to get chached allot less than nthw.co.uk

erol · 23-12-2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Proxy servers are usualy used to cut down the amount of load on the ISP's pipe. I cant see ntl ditching this as its there to save them from buying a bigger pipe.

This is true but any saving on NTL's (external) 'pipe' must surely be balanced against the cost of implementing the proxy servers in the first place. If you start to include the cost of support calls caused by faulty proxies and the factor in an amount for 'customer dissatisfaction' I have personal have little doubt that the proxies cost NTL more than they save them right now. I would (again) point out that the cost of NTL's (external) 'pipe' is falling year on year. The cost of support and customer dissatisfaction is not.

Quote:

Ditch the proxy's I say !!!!

That is certainly one 'option' and maybe there should be a petition for ditching them all togeather ? Another option would be for NTL to make them work but this itself costs money and is something that NTL have failed to do, from significant numbers (imo) of users perspectives.

Personal I see the option of making them optional as a kind of 'compromise / middle ground' option. Those that want to use them can and if they work and improve web browsing performance they will get used (imo). Those that do not want to use them can choose not to. I also think making them optional can only help any 'load balancing' problems, not cause / worsen them, and I have tried to explain my reasoning behind this.

I think making the proxies optional is a sensible, practicle, cost effective and relatively easy way NTL could improve the NTL Internet experience for many of it's users. This is not (from my perspective anyway) about 'attacking' NTL, but actually about trying to find ways of improving their services. It is also not about 'promoting myself' or NTLH. I had hoped that someone else might start the ball rolling (set up the petition) but they did not. I also considered using a 'psudeonym' as the author of the petition, for I was aware that some would choose not to sign it, not based on the merits of the issue, but based merely on the fact that I 'wrote' it. I do however have a personal aversion to using 'false' names and actually thought that this was such a clear and 'unpartisian' issue that such 'personal issues' would not become 'overriding'.

Given that only 5 people have so far signed I guess that either my perception of how much of a problem the forced use of proxies is to users is wrong or my perception of how much people would not sign based on me being the author is wrong

threadbare · 23-12-2003, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by erol

I think making the proxies optional is a sensible, practicle, cost effective and relatively easy way NTL could improve the NTL Internet experience for many of it's users.

how are ntl going to implement this in a practical cost effective way?

how are users going to choose their proxies?

edit: i think its best for a petition to either make them work or do away with them

erol · 23-12-2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by threadbare

how are ntl going to implement this in a practical cost effective way?

Well again I would stress I am no expert (and always willing to hear from and learn from one) but I would imagine they simply 'turn off' the forced interception of port 80 requests.

Quote:

how are users going to choose their proxies?

Enter nothing in IE proxy settings - no proxy is used.
Enter your local NTL proxy server - local NTL proxy is used
Enter a non local NTL proxy server - non local NTL proxy is used
Enter a third party proxy server - a third party proxy is used.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Or have I missed / misunderstood something ?