A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

VPN performance question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 23rd 20, 09:46 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default VPN performance question

Scenario is:

Vigor 2860 connected to VDSL 2.5M bits/sec up, 22 Mbits/sec down at my
location. I know that's slow, but its well over 1km to the Green Cabinet.

At a remote farm, Vigor 2832 connected to ADSL 800 kbits/sec up, 1.8
Mbits/sec down. As I said, it's remote!

Both sites have static public IPs so I have a LAN-to-LAN VPN between the
two routers. I can use VNC to drive a PC at the remote farm - it works
well.

But I need access when not using my V2860 router. So I configure the
V2832 for a Dial-UP VPN using PPTP, and set up a VPN connectoid within
Windows. It connects, ping times are about 40mS, same as for the
LAN-to-LAN VPN. But VNC is treacly slow - it can take 10 seconds to
re-draw the screen! Tested with both Windows 7 and Windows 10 -
similarly slow on both.

So I test to another site where there is a V2830 router connected to an
Openreach VDSL modem, so I can't see the sync speeds. But it is a
capped service probably 5 Mbits/sec up, 40 Mbits/sec down. The dial up
VPN gives VNC performance equally as good as the LAN-to-LAN VPN.

A friend tries dialling in to my router, and gets good VNC performance.

So at the farm site I map the VNC port to the LAN IP of the PC I want to
communicate with - and get good VNC performance, the equal of the
LAN-to-LAN VPN. Not as secure, and would need port mappings for every
PC at that site, but acceptable in this instance only.

So I now suspect that the Dial-In VPN on the V2832 does not work properly.

Has anybody got one they can test in the same way to confirm this please?


--
Graham J
  #2  
Old April 23rd 20, 11:06 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
A. Non Eyemouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default VPN performance question

On 23/04/2020 21:46, Graham J wrote:
Scenario is:

Vigor 2860 connected to VDSL 2.5M bits/sec up, 22 Mbits/sec down at my
location.* I know that's slow, but its well over 1km to the Green Cabinet.

At a remote farm, Vigor 2832 connected to ADSL 800 kbits/sec up, 1.8
Mbits/sec down.* As I said, it's remote!

Both sites have static public IPs so I have a LAN-to-LAN VPN between the
two routers.* I can use VNC to drive a PC at the remote farm - it works
well.

But I need access when not using my V2860 router.* So I configure the
V2832 for a Dial-UP VPN using PPTP, and set up a VPN connectoid within
Windows.* It connects, ping times are about 40mS, same as for the
LAN-to-LAN VPN.* But VNC is treacly slow - it can take 10 seconds to
re-draw the screen!* Tested with both Windows 7 and Windows 10 -
similarly slow on both.

So I test to another site where there is a V2830 router connected to an
Openreach VDSL modem, so I can't see the sync speeds.* But it is* a
capped service probably 5 Mbits/sec up, 40 Mbits/sec down.* The dial up
VPN gives VNC performance equally as good as the LAN-to-LAN VPN.

A friend tries dialling in to my router, and gets good VNC performance.

So at the farm site I map the VNC port to the LAN IP of the PC I want to
communicate with - and get good VNC performance, the equal of the
LAN-to-LAN VPN.* Not as secure, and would need port mappings for every
PC at that site, but acceptable in this instance only.

So I now suspect that the Dial-In VPN on the V2832 does not work properly.

Has anybody got one they can test in the same way to confirm this please?



Presumably your LAN-LAN vpn connection is using ipsec. Have you tried
configuring your Windows client VPN to use L2TP/ipsec (in transport
mode) rather than pptp?

--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
  #3  
Old April 23rd 20, 11:25 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default VPN performance question

A. non Eyemouse wrote:
[snip]

Presumably your LAN-LAN vpn connection is using ipsec. Have you tried
configuring your Windows client VPN to use L2TP/ipsec (in transport
mode) rather than pptp?


Could you explain why this might make a difference? And why not using
L2TP/ipsec would affect only the V2832?

I can't test it until late tomorrow ...

--
Graham J
  #4  
Old April 24th 20, 12:53 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
A. Non Eyemouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default VPN performance question

On 23/04/2020 23:25, Graham J wrote:
A. non Eyemouse wrote:
[snip]

Presumably your LAN-LAN vpn connection is using ipsec. Have you tried
configuring your Windows client VPN to use L2TP/ipsec (in transport
mode) rather than pptp?


Could you explain why this might make a difference? And why not using
L2TP/ipsec would affect only the V2832?

I can't test it until late tomorrow ...


Is your friend using the same router/NAT setup to dial in as you are
with exactly the same settings?

PPTP uses GRE (ip protocol 47) and a tcp control channel on port 1723.
It's possible that GRE may not play nice with your firewall on the way
out of your LAN as NAT firewalls rely on port numbers to work properly
(for udp and tcp packets). When you send outbound packets to tcp/1723,
the firewall will set a corresponding inbound rule for replies, but the
behaviour for the GRE return traffic will be unpredictable. I've just
read that for Drayteks if you have a pptp vpn server behind a firewall
then you should set a vpn passthrough for protocol 47. I'd check this
for your client too if you have access to the router/firewall that it
sits behind.
https://www.draytek.co.uk/archive/kb_vigor_passthrough.html

When you map the vnc port to the LAN - presumably port forwarding from
public-ip:tcp/5901 - lan-ip:/tcp/5901 everything works nicely as
expected as there is only tcp to pass through the firewall.

I've encountered similar situations to this when I used to tunnel ipv6
over ipv4 (protocol 41). It would work with some routers but not with
others. In the end I found the best one was an old Linksys WRT54G
flashed with DDWRT!


I'll check my old 3100 if I get a chance over the next few days.

--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
  #5  
Old April 24th 20, 10:21 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default VPN performance question

A. non Eyemouse wrote:
On 23/04/2020 23:25, Graham J wrote:
A. non Eyemouse wrote:
[snip]

Presumably your LAN-LAN vpn connection is using ipsec. Have you tried
configuring your Windows client VPN to use L2TP/ipsec (in transport
mode) rather than pptp?


Could you explain why this might make a difference? And why not using
L2TP/ipsec would affect only the V2832?

I can't test it until late tomorrow ...


Is your friend using the same router/NAT setup to dial in as you are
with exactly the same settings?

PPTP uses GRE (ip protocol 47) and a tcp control channel on port 1723.
It's possible that GRE may not play nice with your firewall on the way
out of your LAN as NAT firewalls rely on port numbers to work properly
(for udp and tcp packets). When you send outbound packets to tcp/1723,
the firewall will set a corresponding inbound rule for replies, but the
behaviour for the GRE return traffic will be unpredictable. I've just
read that for Drayteks if you have a pptp vpn server behind a firewall
then you should set a vpn passthrough for protocol 47. I'd check this
for your client too if you have access to the router/firewall that it
sits behind.
https://www.draytek.co.uk/archive/kb_vigor_passthrough.html

When you map the vnc port to the LAN - presumably port forwarding from
public-ip:tcp/5901 - lan-ip:/tcp/5901 everything works nicely as
expected as there is only tcp to pass through the firewall.


[Snip]

Last point - yes everything works as nicely as expected.

Not sure which traffic is outbound in your explanation.

For my PC - V2860 - Internet - VDSL modem - V2830 - PC
I test using the Dial-up connectoid in Windows 7

The remote site (my sister Stella) has good fast FTTC and the dial-up
VPN works fine.

My outgoing traffic is trivial - keystrokes and mouse clicks.

At Stella, the outgoing traffic is significant because for VNC it
completely re-draws the screen for virtually everything I do. The 2830
NAT will only see ACK packets in response to this and they should be
very predictable.


For the problem site:

My PC - V2860 - Internet - V2832 - PC

This site (Farm) has quite slow ADSL but port forwarding to VNC works as
well as expected. The 2832 will configure NAT to allow in unsolicited
VNC traffic, so should also allow replies to its outbound traffic.

If I run the same test with dial-up to use the VPN, performance is
awful. But the 2832 NAT is surely doing exactly the same thing?


My friend Jim tests to me:

His PC - 4G router - internet - my 2860 - PC

He uses the Windows 10 connectoid. The test PC has TightVNC (as does
the PC at the Farm, and at Stella). His test to my PC gives good VNC
performance.


But when Jim tests to the Farm site:

His PC - 4G router - internet - 2832 - PC

The performance with VNC is awful, exactly as I saw. But if Jim uses
the public IP of the Farm and relies on its port forwarding, he gets
good performance.

It is Jim who needs reliable access to the Farm site to support it,
particularly now with coronavirus otherwise he would go there in person.
His 4G connection has a dynamic public IP so a LAN-to-LAN VPN will not
work. And sadly, he can't even get ADSL - this is a rural area!


Late tonight I will try changing the 2832 to require L2TP/ipsec for the
dial-up VPN and let you know whether this makes a difference.

Thanks for your help.


--
Graham J
  #6  
Old April 24th 20, 02:37 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
A. Non Eyemouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default VPN performance question

On 24/04/2020 10:21, Graham J wrote:
A. non Eyemouse wrote:
On 23/04/2020 23:25, Graham J wrote:
A. non Eyemouse wrote:
[snip]

Presumably your LAN-LAN vpn connection is using ipsec. Have you
tried configuring your Windows client VPN to use L2TP/ipsec (in
transport mode) rather than pptp?

Could you explain why this might make a difference? And why not using
L2TP/ipsec would affect only the V2832?

I can't test it until late tomorrow ...


Is your friend using the same router/NAT setup to dial in as you are
with exactly the same settings?

PPTP uses GRE (ip protocol 47) and a tcp control channel on port 1723.
It's possible that GRE may not play nice with your firewall on the way
out of your LAN as NAT firewalls rely on port numbers to work properly
(for udp and tcp packets). When you send outbound packets to tcp/1723,
the firewall will set a corresponding inbound rule for replies, but
the behaviour for the GRE return traffic will be unpredictable. I've
just read that for Drayteks if you have a pptp vpn server behind a
firewall then you should set a vpn passthrough for protocol 47. I'd
check this for your client too if you have access to the
router/firewall that it sits behind.
https://www.draytek.co.uk/archive/kb_vigor_passthrough.html

When you map the vnc port to the LAN - presumably port forwarding from
public-ip:tcp/5901 - lan-ip:/tcp/5901 everything works nicely as
expected as there is only tcp to pass through the firewall.


[Snip]

Last point - yes everything works as nicely as expected.

Not sure which traffic is outbound in your explanation.

For my PC - V2860 - Internet - VDSL modem - V2830 - PC
I test using the Dial-up connectoid in Windows 7

The remote site (my sister Stella) has good fast FTTC and the dial-up
VPN works fine.

My outgoing traffic is trivial - keystrokes and mouse clicks.

At Stella, the outgoing traffic is significant because for VNC it
completely re-draws the screen for virtually everything I do.* The 2830
NAT will only see ACK packets in response to this and they should be
very predictable.


For the problem site:

My PC - V2860 - Internet - V2832 - PC

This site (Farm) has quite slow ADSL but port forwarding to VNC works as
well as expected.* The 2832 will configure NAT to allow in unsolicited
VNC traffic, so should also allow replies to its outbound traffic.

If I run the same test with dial-up to use the VPN, performance is
awful.* But the 2832 NAT is surely doing exactly the same thing?


My friend Jim tests to me:

His PC - 4G router - internet - my 2860 - PC

He uses the Windows 10 connectoid.* The test PC has TightVNC (as does
the PC at the Farm, and at Stella).* His test to my PC gives good VNC
performance.


But when Jim tests to the Farm site:

His PC - 4G router - internet - 2832 - PC

The performance with VNC is awful, exactly as I saw.* But if Jim uses
the public IP of the Farm and relies on its port forwarding, he gets
good performance.

It is Jim who needs reliable access to the Farm site to support it,
particularly now with coronavirus otherwise he would go there in person.
*His 4G connection has a dynamic public IP so a LAN-to-LAN VPN will not
work.* And sadly, he can't even get ADSL - this is a rural area!


Late tonight I will try changing the 2832 to require L2TP/ipsec for the
dial-up VPN and let you know whether this makes a difference.

Thanks for your help.



Can I suggest the first thing you try is the VPN pass-through on the
V2860 which is in front of your windows client. Rather than the server
address shown in the Draytek example I linked above, enter the address
of your client PC. That way your V2860 will know where to send the GRE
(protocol 47) traffic. If this doesn't make a noticeable difference then
set up and try L2TP/IPSEC. You don't need to do this at the farm
location because the router is terminating the VPN rather than passing
it though.

I suspect there may be a lot of tcp time-out, re-tries and timer
back-offs due to the firewall issue. This is going to be more noticeable
with your 800k upload from the farm than it was with the VDSL site.

--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
  #7  
Old April 24th 20, 10:25 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default VPN performance question

A. non Eyemouse wrote:

[snip]



Can I suggest the first thing you try is the VPN pass-through on the
V2860 which is in front of your windows client. Rather than the server
address shown in the Draytek example I linked above, enter the address
of your client PC. That way your V2860 will know where to send the GRE
(protocol 47) traffic. If this doesn't make a noticeable difference then
set up and try L2TP/IPSEC. You don't need to do this at the farm
location because the router is terminating the VPN rather than passing
it though.

I suspect there may be a lot of tcp time-out, re-tries and timer
back-offs due to the firewall issue. This is going to be more noticeable
with your 800k upload from the farm than it was with the VDSL site.


Tried VPN Pass-through on my 2860 local router - no improvement.

Configured 2832 at Farm for L2TP with IPsec policy = None
W7 fails to connect
Edited W7 connectoid, changed from security = automatic
to security = L2TP etc ...
W7 now connects - noticeably faster than with PPTP
VNC gives spectacular improvement, compares with port forwarding

So I suspect the automatic Connectoid setting does not try all the
various connection types, or if it does the V2832 does not respond
correctly.

Changed 2832 at Farm for L2TP with IPsec policy = Must
Configured a PSK, put that PSK in the W7 connectoid - fails to connect.
So revereted to IPsec policy = None

So L2TP/IPSec does work better than PPTP. In fact it is faster than the
LAN-to-LAN connection (which uses the IPSec tunnel with PSK) when VNC
draws the screen; LAN-to-LAN always hiccups about 80% down the screen.

I've no explanation as to why.

Thanks for the suggestion.


--
Graham J
  #8  
Old April 24th 20, 11:31 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
A. Non Eyemouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default VPN performance question

On 24/04/2020 22:25, Graham J wrote:
A. non Eyemouse wrote:

[snip]



Can I suggest the first thing you try is the VPN pass-through on the
V2860 which is in front of your windows client. Rather than the server
address shown in the Draytek example I linked above, enter the address
of your client PC. That way your V2860 will know where to send the GRE
(protocol 47) traffic. If this doesn't make a noticeable difference
then set up and try L2TP/IPSEC. You don't need to do this at the farm
location because the router is terminating the VPN rather than passing
it though.

I suspect there may be a lot of tcp time-out, re-tries and timer
back-offs due to the firewall issue. This is going to be more
noticeable with your 800k upload from the farm than it was with the
VDSL site.


Tried VPN Pass-through on my 2860 local router - no improvement.


OK. Interesting to know the outcome of that setting.


Configured 2832 at Farm for L2TP with IPsec policy = None
W7 fails to connect
Edited W7 connectoid, changed from security = automatic
to security = L2TP etc ...
W7 now connects - noticeably faster than with PPTP
VNC gives spectacular improvement, compares with port forwarding

So I suspect the automatic Connectoid setting does not try all the
various connection types, or if it does the V2832 does not respond
correctly.

Changed 2832 at Farm for L2TP with IPsec policy = Must
Configured a PSK, put that PSK in the W7 connectoid - fails to connect.
So revereted to IPsec policy = None


Have you seen the Draytek support page for a W7 connection?
https://www.draytek.com/support/knowledge-base/5291



So L2TP/IPSec does work better than PPTP.* In fact it is faster than the
LAN-to-LAN connection (which uses the IPSec tunnel with PSK) when VNC
draws the screen; LAN-to-LAN always hiccups about 80% down the screen.

I've no explanation as to why.


L2TP without IPSEC protection is just tunneling it over a udp connection
to port 1702. udp is "fire and forget" whereas tcp requires
acknowledgements, sets window sizes, retries, backs off exponentially...



Thanks for the suggestion.


Welcome, glad you were able to make some progress.
Sometimes difficult to diagnose when you don't have access to the
network, Normally I'd be trying to get a packet capture from one point
with tcpdump or Wireshark.

--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.
  #9  
Old April 25th 20, 08:38 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default VPN performance question

A. non Eyemouse wrote:

[snip]

Tried VPN Pass-through on my 2860 local router - no improvement.


OK. Interesting to know the outcome of that setting.


Configured 2832 at Farm for L2TP with IPsec policy = None
W7 fails to connect
Edited W7 connectoid, changed from security = automatic
to security = L2TP etc ...
W7 now connects - noticeably faster than with PPTP
VNC gives spectacular improvement, compares with port forwarding

So I suspect the automatic Connectoid setting does not try all the
various connection types, or if it does the V2832 does not respond
correctly.

Changed 2832 at Farm for L2TP with IPsec policy = Must
Configured a PSK, put that PSK in the W7 connectoid - fails to connect.
So reverted to IPsec policy = None


Have you seen the Draytek support page for a W7 connection?
https://www.draytek.com/support/knowledge-base/5291


I hadn't seen that, but nevertheless I did almost exactly what is shown
there. My only difference is that in the 2832

VPN and Remote Access IPsec General Setup

I left it at the default:

Medium (AH), High (AH)
High (ESP) DES unticked, 3DES and AES ticked

So L2TP/IPSec does work better than PPTP.* In fact it is faster than
the LAN-to-LAN connection (which uses the IPSec tunnel with PSK) when
VNC draws the screen; LAN-to-LAN always hiccups about 80% down the
screen.

I've no explanation as to why.


L2TP without IPSEC protection is just tunneling it over a udp connection
to port 1702. udp is "fire and forget" whereas tcp requires
acknowledgements, sets window sizes, retries, backs off exponentially...


So you're suggesting that the slow up speed of the 2832 might break TCP,
and because L2TP without IPSec uses only UDP it works more quickly?

By contrast, does PPTP always use TCP and therefore suffer retry delays?
I've seen one explanation that suggests "modified UDP".

When I test with the LAN-to-LAN configuration, the routers have this
configured with IPSec tunnel, PSK and High (ESP) AES with
Authentication. On would have thought that used TCP and would be
equally subject to retries and delays. Indeed the hiccup I sometimes
see may be exacty that ...


Thanks for the suggestion.


Welcome, glad you were able to make some progress.
Sometimes difficult to diagnose when you don't have access to the
network, Normally I'd be trying to get a packet capture from one point
with tcpdump or Wireshark.


That would take me a while to set up ...


--
Graham J
  #10  
Old May 1st 20, 10:39 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default VPN performance question

Peter wrote:

Graham J wrote

So L2TP/IPSec does work better than PPTP.


That really surprises me. I have been running VPNs for about 15 years
and always found PPTP to be very fast.


But this is only for a Vigor 2832 on a slow ADSL service. So it might
be the slowness of the ADSL or a limitation of the 2832


L2TP without IPSEC protection is just tunneling it over a udp connection
to port 1702. udp is "fire and forget" whereas tcp requires
acknowledgements, sets window sizes, retries, backs off exponentially...


So you're suggesting that the slow up speed of the 2832 might break TCP,
and because L2TP without IPSec uses only UDP it works more quickly?

By contrast, does PPTP always use TCP and therefore suffer retry delays?
I've seen one explanation that suggests "modified UDP".


Obviously I am no expert but PPTP doesn't run over TCP/IP. It uses UDP
packets to form a nonstandard protocol, which is why PPTP doesn't work
over some networks. One needs specific support in routers etc for
PPTP. Usually this is present but not always.


I think the problem may be that PPTP imitates the way TCP packets are
sequenced and acknowledged, so that if there is a delay PPTP re-sends
some packets.

Ordinarily UDP packets are not acknowledged so there is no possibility
of a delay because of retries. Clearly packets might be delayed, but
where they carry a VNC session that might not be very noticeable.


When I set up a "teleworker" VPN I set up PPTP and one other; usually
L2TP/IPSEC. Usually one works and the other doesn't, for a given
client With different versions of android you get different
combinations of the two

When I test with the LAN-to-LAN configuration, the routers have this
configured with IPSec tunnel, PSK and High (ESP) AES with
Authentication. On would have thought that used TCP and would be
equally subject to retries and delays. Indeed the hiccup I sometimes
see may be exacty that ...


I am convinced half these options on Drayteks don't actually work.
That's why one always carefully followed the old Mikey's Guides for
Draytek VPN config

It's like the DOS protection features in the firewall. They break a
ton of stuff...


One I saw: later versions of 2830 series are supposed to collect line
data from a V130 modem connected to WAN2. In March 2015 I sent back a
V2830n-V2 because it didn't show the V130 status despite the fact that
it was advertised as having this feature. I got a full refund. In
retrospect it was probably that the default DoS settings in the firewall
blocked it and Draytek support did not know. They did send some
alternative firmware but this did not improve matters.

By contrast the V2860 does show the status of a connected V130 - but
even then you have to be careful with the firwall settings.

VPNs often run very slowly for reasons which are usually never found.
At my office, if someone opens a VPN on their laptop (wifi or ethernet
connected) it tends to run at about 1/10 of the expected speed. With
"80/20" (actually about 70/10) FTTP it is still fast enough.

I am suspecting the MTU size negotiation being badly implemented in
some Draytek kit. I am sure the 2955 didn't do it right, but the 2960
seems to be ok. We got around the 2955 problem by setting MTU to 1300
in it and setting the same in a web server which sits on the inside of
the LAN. MTU issues can be a bugger and can account for weird issues
like a server being inaccessible from the internet over a particular
company's (say Vodafone) 4G.


I can't say I've ever seen a problem that I would attribute to MTU
sizes. But I know that the Draytek support people suggest that as the
first cause of any problem. I suspect they don't know, and it's a form
of black magic to them.

Thanks anyway.


--
Graham J
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VPN ports blocked by many ISPs, SSL VPN? Doz uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 1 September 13th 06 03:14 PM
VPN ports blocked by many ISPs, SSL VPN? Gordon Hudson uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 September 11th 06 02:03 PM
VPN performance Rob S uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 3 May 25th 05 05:10 PM
Vigor 2900G VPN v XP Pro VPN v XP Remote Desktop Fred Finisterre uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 December 2nd 04 09:40 AM
3Com Wireless 11g Access Point (Performance Question) Lee J. Moore uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 8 January 5th 04 12:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2020 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.