Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4

[Cousin Stanley]

>>>  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

[Paul Scott]

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

[John Hasler]

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

[John Haggerty]

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  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 
> 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
>>
>>
>

Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4

[John Haggerty]

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 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
>
>

Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4

[Stefan Monnier]

>> 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

[Cousin Stanley]

>> 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

[Raquel]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:57:28 -0400
Stefan Monnier  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

[Siggy Brentrup]

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

[John Hasler]

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

[Stefan Monnier]

>> 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

[Ron Johnson]

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

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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

[John Haggerty]

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  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 > 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
>>
>>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>>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

[Paul Scott]

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 
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

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
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

[Cousin Stanley]

>> 
>> 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]

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
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
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
>
>

Re: Network concerns and configuration draft 4

[Cousin Stanley]

> 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