Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Cousin Stanley wrote: John Haggerty wrote: I would ask would a static ip really be able to allow the machines to reach the outer network? Why not? As long as the outer fixed IP is routable which it would be. OTOH dyndns.org and others provide a way to tell the outside world what your current IP is. These services are free for personal use. I do most of what you are doing. Paul Are you using qwest dsl ? Sorry to get back so late. Yes. Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
OTOH dyndns.org and others provide a way to tell the outside world what your current IP is. These services are free for personal use. I do most of what you are doing. Paul Are you using qwest dsl ? Yes. Paul Thanks for the acknowledgement I may try again to connect from outside to my home network through dyndns using qwest as an isp -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Stefan writes: 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. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 07:15 -0500, John Hasler wrote: Stefan writes: 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. ... for windoze users you should have said, and providers usually don't care about the minority users like us, that know what they are doing. Moreover, if you are in control (or drink some beer with the admin) of the box acting as your MX, an ISP blocking port 25 is no major problem. Siggy -- Please don't Cc: me when replying, I might not see either copy. bsb-at-psycho-dot-informationsanarchistik-dot-de or:bsb-at-psycho-dot-i21k-dot-de O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:57:28 -0400 Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote: That's true. But at least around where I live, those ISPs that offer static IPs for a small surcharge are smaller, cheaper, and offer better service. Then again, those tend to not filter any ports even with dynamic IPs, so you wouldn't need a static IP with them. Those who charge a lot for static IPs (and/or reserve them for their business customers) tend to be much larger ISPs who don't care much about their residential customers (they rely on heavy marketing to lure them in, rather than on the quality of their service). To me disallowing running servers is pretty close to the issue of net-neutrality, so I prefer to stay away from such ISPs. Stefan I have a large provider. I paid $100 up front for my static IPs (/28), and no monthly fee. New customers don't get the deal. -- Raquel When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. --Benjamin Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
John Haggerty wrote: I would ask would a static ip really be able to allow the machines to reach the outer network? Why not? As long as the outer fixed IP is routable which it would be. OTOH dyndns.org and others provide a way to tell the outside world what your current IP is. These services are free for personal use. I do most of what you are doing. Paul Are you using qwest dsl ? -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
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
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
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.cawrote: 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
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
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.cawrote: 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
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Stefan writes: Do you really think that botnets can only run their servers on port 80? I said nothing about port numbers. 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. Which let an ISP block ports and/or terminate service to customers who run servers without having to prove that the servers are being used maliciously. I doubt that a significant number of customers are paying for a static IP just so that they can run a Web server when they can rent a virtual server with far more bandwidth for $10/month. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
I would ask would a static ip really be able to allow the machines to reach the outer network? On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Cousin Stanley cousinstan...@hotmail.comwrote: Ok so here is the issue I have a desire to run my own linux server as an rt box and to do wiki web serving plus email. I run off of a qwest dsl setup that is feeding 4 computers that are all getting internet 6. I am looking for the best option for the money I like cheap and I like something that gives all comps access but allows me my file serving John I'm also a qwest dsl user and did a fair amount of net searching several months back looking for a similar solution The best I remember now from those searches at the time is that the path of least resistance and headache might be to pay qwest a few extra $$$ per month for a static ip Personlly, I gave up on it and as yet haven't bought any static ips from qwest -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
I run off of a qwest dsl setup that is feeding 4 computers I would ask would a static ip really be able to allow the machines to reach the outer network ? John In all honesty, I don't know as I haven't tried outside connections through my qwest dsl with a static ip myself I did fail to connect without a static ip using a dyn-dns setup but am unsure if that failure was due to a lack of knowledge and/or improper configuration/setup on my part What I seem to remember from earlier Google-izing almost 2 years ago is that other qwest users had a similar experience to mine and that the solution of least resistance was a qwest static ip, although I don't remember for sure if that was the only solution A phone call to qwest technical support might provide an answer -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
John Haggerty wrote: I would ask would a static ip really be able to allow the machines to reach the outer network? Why not? As long as the outer fixed IP is routable which it would be. OTOH dyndns.org and others provide a way to tell the outside world what your current IP is. These services are free for personal use. I do most of what you are doing. Paul Scott On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Cousin Stanley cousinstan...@hotmail.com mailto:cousinstan...@hotmail.com wrote: Ok so here is the issue I have a desire to run my own linux server as an rt box and to do wiki web serving plus email. I run off of a qwest dsl setup that is feeding 4 computers that are all getting internet 6. I am looking for the best option for the money I like cheap and I like something that gives all comps access but allows me my file serving John I'm also a qwest dsl user and did a fair amount of net searching several months back looking for a similar solution The best I remember now from those searches at the time is that the path of least resistance and headache might be to pay qwest a few extra $$$ per month for a static ip Personlly, I gave up on it and as yet haven't bought any static ips from qwest -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org mailto:debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org mailto:listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Is there a particular brand of router? Is the multi-tiered switch configuration preventing this? On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Paul Scott psl...@ultrasw.com wrote: John Haggerty wrote: I would ask would a static ip really be able to allow the machines to reach the outer network? Why not? As long as the outer fixed IP is routable which it would be. OTOH dyndns.org and others provide a way to tell the outside world what your current IP is. These services are free for personal use. I do most of what you are doing. Paul Scott On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Cousin Stanley cousinstan...@hotmail.com mailto:cousinstan...@hotmail.com wrote: Ok so here is the issue I have a desire to run my own linux server as an rt box and to do wiki web serving plus email. I run off of a qwest dsl setup that is feeding 4 computers that are all getting internet 6. I am looking for the best option for the money I like cheap and I like something that gives all comps access but allows me my file serving John I'm also a qwest dsl user and did a fair amount of net searching several months back looking for a similar solution The best I remember now from those searches at the time is that the path of least resistance and headache might be to pay qwest a few extra $$$ per month for a static ip Personlly, I gave up on it and as yet haven't bought any static ips from qwest -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org mailto:debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org mailto:listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Ok so here is the issue I have a desire to run my own linux server as an rt box and to do wiki web serving plus email. This requires outside machines to be able to connect to your server on port 80 by default. It's fairly common for ISPs to block port 80 specifically because they don't want you to run servers. 5. dyndns didn`t work as the machine didn`t route the traffic out of my home even when directly ordered to by the dsl router-machines on the inside could though The above doesn't make any sense to me. I have no idea which machine you're talking about, for example. And dyndns doesn't have anything to do with routing. 6. I am looking for the best option for the money I like cheap and I like something that gives all comps access but allows me my file serving. My crystal ball says that if you use another port than 80 (e.g. 8080), then it may work just fine. Of course, a static IP would probably work as well, not by its nature but because your ISP probably doesn't block port 80 for their static IPs (since that would defeat the main purpose of having a static IP). Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
On 2009-07-30 21:43, Stefan Monnier wrote: [snip] Of course, a static IP would probably work as well, not by its nature but because your ISP probably doesn't block port 80 for their static IPs (since that would defeat the main purpose of having a static IP). Some ISPs only have a small surcharge for static IPs, but others only offer them to business customers, which would significantly boost your cost. On the up-side, ISPs don't play filtering or blocking games with their business customers, and only have minimal TOS (no pr0n, spamming, etc). -- Scooty Puff, Sr The Doom-Bringer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Of course, a static IP would probably work as well, not by its nature but because your ISP probably doesn't block port 80 for their static IPs (since that would defeat the main purpose of having a static IP). Some ISPs only have a small surcharge for static IPs, but others only offer them to business customers, which would significantly boost your cost. That's true. But at least around where I live, those ISPs that offer static IPs for a small surcharge are smaller, cheaper, and offer better service. Then again, those tend to not filter any ports even with dynamic IPs, so you wouldn't need a static IP with them. Those who charge a lot for static IPs (and/or reserve them for their business customers) tend to be much larger ISPs who don't care much about their residential customers (they rely on heavy marketing to lure them in, rather than on the quality of their service). To me disallowing running servers is pretty close to the issue of net-neutrality, so I prefer to stay away from such ISPs. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4
Ok so here is the issue I have a desire to run my own linux server as an rt box and to do wiki web serving plus email. I run off of a qwest dsl setup that is feeding 4 computers that are all getting internet 6. I am looking for the best option for the money I like cheap and I like something that gives all comps access but allows me my file serving John I'm also a qwest dsl user and did a fair amount of net searching several months back looking for a similar solution The best I remember now from those searches at the time is that the path of least resistance and headache might be to pay qwest a few extra $$$ per month for a static ip Personlly, I gave up on it and as yet haven't bought any static ips from qwest -- Stanley C. Kitching Human Being Phoenix, Arizona -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
