I checked the prices here http://www.qwest.net/help/static_ips.html#howmuch
it seems that we are looking at the following *# of IP Addresses**Monthly Rate**One Time Charge* 1 (1 useable)$5.95$25.00 8 (5 useable)$14.95$50.00 16 (13 useable)$29.95$75.00 32 (29 useable)$59.95 $150.00 64 (61 useable)$119.95$250.00 which is interesting On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:56 PM, John Haggerty <bouncy...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess based on the feedback so far (which I think is good for a worse > case scenario) what I am wondering if replacing the switches with routers > would do anything about getting access to the system? > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Stefan Monnier > <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote: > >> >> To me disallowing running servers is pretty close to the issue of >> >> net-neutrality, so I prefer to stay away from such ISPs. >> > It isn't usually the customer who is running a server: he doesn't know >> > what it is. It's the botnet herder who controls the machine that runs >> > the servers. As long as most end-user machines are running Windows and >> > therefor probably running bots blocking ports is necessary. >> >> Do you really think that botnets can only run their servers on port 80? >> Do you even think they would use port 80 by default, knowing that it's >> the port most commonly blocked (on incoming connections)? >> >> Nah, blocking port 80 has nothing to do with "protecting the ISP from >> herds of botnets". It's only a business strategy. >> >> In any case, in the quoted paragraph, I'm not talking about blocking >> ports, but about contract clauses that say "thou shalt not run >> a server". >> >> >> Stefan >> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >> listmas...@lists.debian.org >> >> >
