For the past couple of hours, I havn't been able to get on to cemetech. PPl blamed Jpez, but I don't think he did it. It might to be a problem with my DNS(According to Kerm), but I would like to know if anyone else has any ideas. I have to use a CGI proxy to login to it.

I've had that problem with cemetech the past week, but it got fixed yesterday...I think it was my firewall(inside my router), but i'm not too sure.

/me humbly apologizes to JPez for leaping to conclusions


@netham45: see if you can find a different dns server somewhere...

Was it a Dlink Wireless 802.11G router?

Nope, it was one of those airlink101 routers.

However, after I disconnected the router and connected my computer to the main cable, cemetech worked fine.

is this at home, school, what for this also?

I use DHCP. My DNS is set to 192.168.0.1(router IP) so...

yeah, but if the DNS doesn't know where Cemetech is, that could also cause problems.

Hoome. Also,could you guys try to login to a BL server, [DTB]Killbox to see if it is my firewall?

My IP is 67.165.228.166 too.

So you don't have a problem going anywhere else? Try this and report on the results:

Start
Run
Type cmd and hit enter
type tracert cemetech.net and hit enter

I've had this, but it was something that I couldn't fix. Do a traceroute to cemetech and see where the faulty server is. For me, it was between my ISP and cemetech, so some internet backbone server has down/slow. Nothing you can do about it then.

Tracing route to cemetech.net [64.38.21.74]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 30 ms 102 ms 204 ms 192.168.0.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 82 ms * 81 ms 68.86.105.65
4 105 ms 102 ms 101 ms 10g-8-2-ar01.denver.co.denver.comcast.net [68.86
.103.33]
5 18 ms 134 ms 62 ms 68.86.103.146
6 12 ms 11 ms 22 ms 12.116.159.13
7 78 ms 203 ms 102 ms tbr2013801.dvmco.ip.att.net [12.123.207.142]
8 92 ms 56 ms 45 ms tbr1-cl32.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.117]
9 250 ms 103 ms 100 ms gbr2-p10.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.11.38]
10 32 ms 28 ms 46 ms gar1-p370.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.193.157]
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 102 ms 102 ms 100 ms border10.ge2-0-bbnet1.chi.pnap.net [216.52.128.1
4]
13 63 ms 100 ms 46 ms fastservers-1.border10.chi.pnap.net [216.52.130.
166]
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 ^C

I canceled it after all the errors.

As you can see, the error lies somewhere between your ISP and Cemetech.net's servers. Meaning 1) you weren't banned in any way, shape, or form and 2) you can't do anything about it

It would have stopped after 30

There seem to be a few timeouts there that might be the problem. #11 seems most important to me. What can you make of this Kllrnohj?

Edit: Oh wait, you beat me to posting.

Heh, well, there is a *SLIM* chance that for whatever reason that server doesn't like traceroute, so what you should do is then ping the IP it timed out at, and see if that helps any (you can also try pinging cemetech.net and seeing if its just really slow)

Well, would this fix if I got a new external IP? I could probabally chat w/ comcast and get them to give me a new IP.

.... Do you understand at ALL how the internet works? Getting a new IP wouldn't solve ANYTHING. An IP is just an address. If you change your house address, it would change the shortest route to some location. And if for whatever reason that path is going slow (like construction in the street analogy), getting a new address won't help that any.

Like I said, it is clearly getting beyond your ISP (meaning all of comcast in your area) before you are getting problems. So short of moving to a new state, you can't fix it (although it will fix itself over time)

Just another reason to go for tierd internet services rather than stupid net neutrality

What I was thinking(Is this stupid) is that maby if I got my IP changed, it would set it to go to a different route(maby the IP's were in brackets by number) then it would work. It made sense to me. Though once I wrote it, I am coonfused.

Yes.

I dunno much about TCP/IP.