• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Verizon FIOS changing IPs when using bittorrent

N

Netcraazzy

Member
live in Tampa, FL and have Verizon's FIOS service. Recently I have noticed that whenever I initiate a bittorrent transfer my WAN IP address starts changing about every 15min until I stop the transfer. Has anybody else noticed this on FIOS?
 
I hadn't thought about that but I honestly don't think so. I didn't have much else going at the time besides Pidgen. I also have a dynamic domain name through dyndns and checked my logs on the updater client. The IP hopping started about 2-3min after I started the bittorrent traffic and then didn't happen any more all night once I stopped the transfer about 2 hours later. I also did a little test today. My dyndns log showed that the IP had not changed since last night. I started up my bittorrent client and resumed a torrent. Within 2 min my IP address changed.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Sounds like they're getting ready to start shaping peer-2-peer.
Click to expand...

I don't use P2P very often but I think this is a pretty underhanded tactic on Verizon's part. I'll pay the same price for a slightly slower cable connection if I can feel secure that they are not going to screw with me when I decide to grab a Fedora ISO.

 
That's basically your problem.

The D-Link router is not a very powerful router, and it can't handle a lot of PAT sessions. When it gets loaded down, it slows down. PPPoE as implemented in this case has a fairly tight set of timeouts, if the router gets too bogged down, something in the control part of the session gets missed, and you lose your PPPoE session. It gets re-established, but every time you do that, you will get a different IP address.

What I would do first is investigate whether you can switch to DHCP.

First, try just setting your router to DHCP - you might be surprised, apparently in a lot of markets, they enable both on customer VCs. So if your router asks for DHCP, you'll get an answer and away you go. Besides not having as much of a stateful session to lose, the way VZ seems to have configured DHCP is like most cable companies - they try to keep you having the same MAC address to IP address mapping until they want to renumber your area.

If that doesn't work, talk to tech support and ask them how to migrate your account to DHCP. It should be possible to reconfigure but will likely require some escalation. It's possible though unlikely that your market doesn't support DHCP at all. I think they all do by now but it could happen.

You can also look at getting a router with more horsepower.
 
Great info cmetz! I will try plugging in a different router and see if I get a usable IP through DHCP. I've actually been wanting to replace the dlink router supplied by Verizon but I don't know the userid and password that is stored in it for PPPoE. I've been avoiding dealing with their support since the account is in my wife's maiden name and they give me a hard time whenever I call.
 
... tell them your router keeps on crashing and demand a new westfel router. It has dual 64bit processors and can REALLY handle higher traffic 🙂.
 
You have FIOS, but you are PPPoE? Really? I didn't know that they implemented FIOS over PPPoE, I thought all FIOS were DHCP. Seems really stupid to me, PPPoE sucks, and FIOS is supposed to not suck.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
You have FIOS, but you are PPPoE? Really? I didn't know that they implemented FIOS over PPPoE, I thought all FIOS were DHCP. Seems really stupid to me, PPPoE sucks, and FIOS is supposed to not suck.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
You have FIOS, but you are PPPoE? Really? I didn't know that they implemented FIOS over PPPoE, I thought all FIOS were DHCP. Seems really stupid to me, PPPoE sucks, and FIOS is supposed to not suck.
Click to expand...

PPPOE vs DHCP with FIOS I believe has to do with when you ordered the service. All newer orders are DHCP since....2006 maybe? And actually this is the same with Verizon DSL as well. Newer DSL orders are DHCP rather than PPPOE

As far as one being better or worse, when it comes to performance, DHCP is only marginally better but I don't think you'll ever notice the difference. With PPPOE, your WAN IP address will change more frequently than DHCP and if you are directly connected to your modem, PPPOE is more of a hassle to get connected compared to DHCP. But no, PPPOE doesn't "suck" or make the service itself any better or worse.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
You have FIOS, but you are PPPoE? Really? I didn't know that they implemented FIOS over PPPoE, I thought all FIOS were DHCP. Seems really stupid to me, PPPoE sucks, and FIOS is supposed to not suck.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
Click to expand...

You expected better?
 
With Verizon if One use a Router to authenticate, as long as Modem and Router are On, the traffic would flow, No change to the IP would made for long period of time.

On the other hand if you switch off the Modem, even for 10 sec., you get immediately a new IP, it does not matter how frequent it is done, you always get a new IP.

With DHCP it varies. My RR service stays for 5 to 6 weeks with the same IP regardless status of the Modem.
 
Originally posted by: JackMDS
With Verizon if One use a Router to authenticate, as long as Modem and Router are On, the traffic would flow, No change to the IP would made for long period of time.

On the other hand if you switch off the Modem, even for 10 sec., you get immediately a new IP, it does not matter how frequent it is done, you always get a new IP.

With DHCP it varies. My RR service stays for 5 to 6 weeks with the same IP regardless status of the Modem.
Click to expand...

My FIOS is DHCP and I had leave my modem unplugged overnight to get a new IP (Was having lots of disconnection issues and the WAN failing to renew the IP but when it did, same IP) After I got a new IP with new subnet on the WAN, I've had that same ip for almost 3 months now and not a single issue.
 
Originally posted by: kevnich2

My FIOS is DHCP and I had leave my modem unplugged overnight to get a new IP (Was having lots of disconnection issues and the WAN failing to renew the IP but when it did, same IP) After I got a new IP with new subnet on the WAN, I've had that same ip for almost 3 months now and not a single issue.
Click to expand...

It is quite sad to begin with, we would expect that the ISPs would disclose to work about of the system used by its subscribers. :shocked:

Then we try to pull togather info (like this thread) and get No where either. :brokenheart:

On the other hand I currently get daily telemarketing phone call from Verizon trying to convince me that I am better off switching my current service to 1Mb/sec. PPPOE DSL for $17.99 a month.

FIOS, Nah. In New York City it is Not easy to upgrade the delivery system, so why should they bother. :|

 
Why it's not easy to upgrade to FIOS in a big city like New York? I always think the cost will be lower than residential area like where I'm located, since Verizon can use less fiber cables in crowded big city.

Verizon upgraded my area to FIOS last year, but I already switch to Charter, since Verizon overbill my mobile phone service.



 
Originally posted by: mxnerd
Why it's not easy to upgrade to FIOS in a big city like New York? I always think the cost will be lower than residential area like where I'm located, since Verizon can use less fiber cables in crowded big city.

Verizon upgraded my area to FIOS last year, but I already switch to Charter, since Verizon overbill my mobile phone service.
Click to expand...

I've seen unverified claims that it can cost upwards of $100 per foot in dense urban settings to lay out fiber, while rural/suburbs can be as cheap as 1/10th of that.

I'm in the opposite situation as you - with Charter, looking to jump to Verizon FIOS.
 
Well the problem IMO is that the infrastructure in places like downtown NY are so old, it needs replaced. But the pains it would take to get it all overhauled is huge because of all the work that is involved with replacing it. I was talking with a tech from that area and they constantly find old copper lines that are several decades old that are rusted or eaten through that usually cause the issues with internet or phone service in those areas. But the sad thing is, take into account the number of subscribers times how much their paying per month. Yes, they can afford to upgrade it but they just don't want to dip into all their profits in order to do it. The same thing, I think, applies to the bandwidth cap that is going around. I'm SURE Spidey will disagree with me but frankly I don't care. ISP's can afford to increase their bandwidth instead of giving it's subscribers to a measly 40gb on their highest tiers (TWC). In my opinion, that is not going forward in trying to make better the internet in the US but is a giant step backward and it's mainly because of companies enjoying all the profits they get by not re-investing and making the technology better for it's customers.
 
nevermind.

kevnch2, it's always been about the last mile and it always will be.

Enjoying profits? Look at the profit margins, yeah - they're rolling in it those super high profits. :laugh: Damn those evil companies and all their spending and upgrades and investment! Damn them all!

/end sarcasm.
 
In the urban area closest to me, I've had customer sites where T1s would bounce all the time, and been told by VZ that it's a physical plant problem, and... they're *not* going to send their line folks into that neighborhood. There are large swaths of the city that VZ just doesn't send their people into if they can help it.

Many urban areas are *urban* in ways not conducive to the installation high-tech upgrades.
 
I also have to send out a big jeer to all the folks earlier in this thread whose first reaction to the OP's problem is that it must be some evil VZ P2P traffic-shaping / network non-neutrality conspiracy. Never assume multi-million dollar high-tech evil conspiracy when $20 junk SOHO router is a sufficient culprit.
 
Originally posted by: kevnich2
As far as one being better or worse, when it comes to performance, DHCP is only marginally better but I don't think you'll ever notice the difference. With PPPOE, your WAN IP address will change more frequently than DHCP and if you are directly connected to your modem, PPPOE is more of a hassle to get connected compared to DHCP. But no, PPPOE doesn't "suck" or make the service itself any better or worse.
Click to expand...

There's the added latency and bandwidth loss from the encapsulation/de-encapsulation process, along with the issue of your MTU only being 1492 (or less), which interferes with some applications.

For example, with a friend's Comcast connection (1500 MTU, DHCP), he can use his PS3 online easily. With my Verizon DSL connection (1492MTU, PPPoE), it wouldn't work at all.
His latency is also lower than mine, although that could also easily have to do with the ISPs peering arrangements rather than the DHCP versus PPPoE issue, but my experience suggests that PPPoE does have slightly higher latency. (As does the difference between fast-path and interleaved on DSL too.)
 
Originally posted by: kevnich2
Well the problem IMO is that the infrastructure in places like downtown NY are so old, it needs replaced. But the pains it would take to get it all overhauled is huge because of all the work that is involved with replacing it. I was talking with a tech from that area and they constantly find old copper lines that are several decades old that are rusted or eaten through that usually cause the issues with internet or phone service in those areas. But the sad thing is, take into account the number of subscribers times how much their paying per month. Yes, they can afford to upgrade it but they just don't want to dip into all their profits in order to do it. The same thing, I think, applies to the bandwidth cap that is going around. I'm SURE Spidey will disagree with me but frankly I don't care. ISP's can afford to increase their bandwidth instead of giving it's subscribers to a measly 40gb on their highest tiers (TWC). In my opinion, that is not going forward in trying to make better the internet in the US but is a giant step backward and it's mainly because of companies enjoying all the profits they get by not re-investing and making the technology better for it's customers.
Click to expand...

The reason that cable ISPs all have horrible caps, is because that is an anti-competitive step that they are taking. What with online video taking off, if everyone had uncapped broadband, they would watch their TV shows and movies online, and stop subscribing to the cable company's video services. They can't allow that to happen, because their video services generate so much gravy compared to their internet services, so they cap, to prevent users from being able to actually use their internet connections for what they want. Instead, they have to pick and choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top