Re: [H] IP Question
Should I re-write the paragraph verbatim? What clarification do you need? You were talking about the ROUTER in bridge mode missing Duncan's query about the MODEM in bridge mode, that was the thrust of my response. Clearly he was asking from the standpoint of the modem, as would anyone talking DSL with half a clue as he very well seems to on this matter. I respect that Duncan comes [H] for answers I like to be sure he gets a clear, concise answers. Quotes: If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has nothing to do with NAT. and You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall switched on and NAT switched on its not in Bridge Mode' On 6/29/2010 12:14 PM, Gaffer wrote: Hi Josh, On Tuesday 29 June 2010 08:00:18 Josh MacCraw wrote: Uh Gaffer needs to read process the info better! The only bridge mode here is on the *DSL MODEM* which is where the *ROUTER* sends the PPOE credentials (if even needed) instead of the modem resulting in a live IP on the router's WAN port instead of being double NAT'd. Would you care to clarify your comments. On 6/28/2010 3:47 PM, Gaffer wrote: Hi Duncan, On Monday 28 June 2010 21:50:10 DSinc wrote: Gaffer, My replies are inline TNX, anyway. On 06/28/2010 15:45, Gaffer wrote: On Monday 28 June 2010 18:54:39 DSinc wrote: I still use xDSL. Soon I will move to FIOS. Well, as I get smarter and answer my ?many? questions (another thread in play!) I am beginning (again) to have trouble with my xDSL connection. I suspect someone local (or ?) keeps camping out on my assigned IP addy from my ISP so that they can just dick with my xDSL modem or my Router. I know I have my xDSL modem set to a bridge mode. I suspect this makes it a straight wire connection to my Router's WAN port. I would never use Bridge Mode unless I was feeding a box that was specifically setup to be a firewall, something like IP Cop. Should I NOT use bridge mode in my TELCO-supplied modem I would be Double Nat-ng and have 2 firewalls. If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has nothing to do with NAT. I view this as excess overhead. Perhaps my bad. My router does both NAT and supports its' own firewall and SPI. Both of these selections have been activated since day one! You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall switched on and NAT switched on its not in Bridge Mode I think I have my Router as |strong| as I currently comprehend its' directions. Your router is not being used as anything but a modem. Its most valuable assets are being thrown away by it being configured as it is. Can you please share some more logic to this? I believe that my Router is my single point of 1st protection to Inbound stuff. Or, perhaps you and I are wired differently. This comment I do not understand. I doubt that we are wired differently. :-) But you are right, the router should be the 1st point of protection. If you really have Bridge Mode turned on, then its simply a modem without offering any protection. All Bridge Mode does is pass on the IP address that the ISP assigns to your connection. Turns out, I have to save Router logs and reboot the Router about every 3-7 days to recover a semi-firm connection. The Router is a DLink DGL-4300. All wireless is disabled. I use wired LAN only. I use a Dlink router. I have mine set to firewall and NAT. The firewall blocks all unrequested incoming traffic and lets everything out. NAT allows me to use a range of IP addresses that are not Internet routeable effectively allowing the use of several machines from the single IP that my ISP assigns me. Which incidentally changes each time I restart the router. OK. Understand this logic. Same-same. That's how life is here too. The problem is I have to re-boot the Router several times a day! This is a totally different issue ! This could simply be a noisy incoming line providing a weak noisy signal. In fact a weak noisy signal to the router could be anywhere between the CO and the router. Or it could be that the router is dieing. I've replaced my router several times because its performance has become degraded, probably due to high voltage transients on the telephone line feeding it. I've also had the spark gaps replaced because they have been damaged during thunder storms. Is this possible? Do not know why someone local chooses to pick on me? I will suppose giggles and laughs for the present! This is the same view to me as past electrical storm interference I had with an older (retired) xdsl modem. The more I read your post, the more I'm inclined to think that the
[H] Virtualization Certification
Hey guys, I downloaded Citrix XenServer 5.5 about 6 months ago and have been using it heavily at home for several purposes. Bottom line is that I'm now hooked on virtualization. It's an awesome technology that really has a bright future. I was thinking of some sort of certification in virtualization. Perhaps that could be a future career path for me. I know VMWare is the industry 800-pound gorilla, but how does everyone thing about Citrix certification? Is it worth the time and money or should I spend it on VMWare certification? Thanks in advance!
Re: [H] Virtualization Certification
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:26:48PM +0300, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Hey guys, I downloaded Citrix XenServer 5.5 about 6 months ago and have been using it heavily at home for several purposes. Bottom line is that I'm now hooked on virtualization. It's an awesome technology that really has a bright future. I was thinking of some sort of certification in virtualization. Perhaps that could be a future career path for me. I know VMWare is the industry 800-pound gorilla, but how does everyone thing about Citrix certification? Is it worth the time and money or should I spend it on VMWare certification? VMWare is king, especially at bigger companies. Also VMware does a better job at virtualizing windows, storage, and networking IMO. Get your VCP on. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Virtualization Certification
I agree that VMWare is King, however, I have heard a lot of people in forums bemoan the fact that VMWare products are now outrageously expensive. Citrix has caught on at the small-midsized companies, but for larger companies and enterprises, VMWare is the big dog. Hyper-V is Hyper-Crap!!! -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:39 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Virtualization Certification On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:26:48PM +0300, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Hey guys, I downloaded Citrix XenServer 5.5 about 6 months ago and have been using it heavily at home for several purposes. Bottom line is that I'm now hooked on virtualization. It's an awesome technology that really has a bright future. I was thinking of some sort of certification in virtualization. Perhaps that could be a future career path for me. I know VMWare is the industry 800-pound gorilla, but how does everyone thing about Citrix certification? Is it worth the time and money or should I spend it on VMWare certification? VMWare is king, especially at bigger companies. Also VMware does a better job at virtualizing windows, storage, and networking IMO. Get your VCP on. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Virtualization Certification
Do you need something like this to help you get involved in virtualization professionally? what are you looking to do specifically in terms of virtualization technology? I took vmware training classes before, it was a waste of money to get certified, even the trainer acknowledged as much - if you do virtualization/storage as part of your profession, it will reflect in your work experience. the cert doesn't mean much, no industry standard. I was doing a lot of vmware/netapp/netbackup back then, had to get officially trained in all of them, part of company protocol. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:26:48 +0300, Naushad, Zulfiqar zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com wrote: Hey guys, I downloaded Citrix XenServer 5.5 about 6 months ago and have been using it heavily at home for several purposes. Bottom line is that I'm now hooked on virtualization. It's an awesome technology that really has a bright future. I was thinking of some sort of certification in virtualization. Perhaps that could be a future career path for me. I know VMWare is the industry 800-pound gorilla, but how does everyone thing about Citrix certification? Is it worth the time and money or should I spend it on VMWare certification? Thanks in advance!
Re: [H] Virtualization Certification
Well, as I said, I am using Xenserver at home right now and since it is free, have managed to get a copy of it running in my office. We had a requirement to run 2 servers for development but had 1 physical box. I managed to convince the management to upgrade to 8 gigs of ram for that box and now we can run 2 servers in 1 physical box. So everyone is mucho happy and the developers really don't notice much speed difference. Anyway, no this is not work related, I just wanted it perhaps to be a career path for me. How do you suggest going about this? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Alex Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:42 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Virtualization Certification Do you need something like this to help you get involved in virtualization professionally? what are you looking to do specifically in terms of virtualization technology? I took vmware training classes before, it was a waste of money to get certified, even the trainer acknowledged as much - if you do virtualization/storage as part of your profession, it will reflect in your work experience. the cert doesn't mean much, no industry standard. I was doing a lot of vmware/netapp/netbackup back then, had to get officially trained in all of them, part of company protocol. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:26:48 +0300, Naushad, Zulfiqar zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com wrote: Hey guys, I downloaded Citrix XenServer 5.5 about 6 months ago and have been using it heavily at home for several purposes. Bottom line is that I'm now hooked on virtualization. It's an awesome technology that really has a bright future. I was thinking of some sort of certification in virtualization. Perhaps that could be a future career path for me. I know VMWare is the industry 800-pound gorilla, but how does everyone thing about Citrix certification? Is it worth the time and money or should I spend it on VMWare certification? Thanks in advance!
[H] Router use?
Does anyone on our list use the DLink DGL-4500 Extreme Gaming Router ?? Thanks, Duncan
Re: [H] IP Question
Hi Josh, Duncan, On Wednesday 30 June 2010 08:03:57 J MacCraw wrote: Should I re-write the paragraph verbatim? What clarification do you need? You were talking about the ROUTER in bridge mode missing Duncan's query about the MODEM in bridge mode, that was the thrust of my response. Right I see the confusion. The only DSL modem that I know of that has internal configuration settings enabling it to be set into bridge mode, is actually a single port router. And yes I agree can do NAT. Here in the UK its very rare to see a straight modem. Virtually all the DSL boxes over here are usually four port routers, with or without wireless. I often set these to bridge mode when they are feeding a firewall appliance, which is not very common in a domestic environment. So apologies to Duncan if I've confused the issue. I hadn't realised that you were talking about two separate items of kit. Clearly he was asking from the standpoint of the modem, as would anyone talking DSL with half a clue as he very well seems to on this matter. I respect that Duncan comes [H] for answers I like to be sure he gets a clear, concise answers. In that case wouldn't it have been incumbent on you to have stepped in sooner to make clarification ! Quotes: If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has nothing to do with NAT. and You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall switched on and NAT switched on its not in Bridge Mode' On 6/29/2010 12:14 PM, Gaffer wrote: Hi Josh, On Tuesday 29 June 2010 08:00:18 Josh MacCraw wrote: Uh Gaffer needs to read process the info better! The only bridge mode here is on the *DSL MODEM* which is where the *ROUTER* sends the PPOE credentials (if even needed) instead of the modem resulting in a live IP on the router's WAN port instead of being double NAT'd. Would you care to clarify your comments. On 6/28/2010 3:47 PM, Gaffer wrote: Hi Duncan, On Monday 28 June 2010 21:50:10 DSinc wrote: Gaffer, My replies are inline TNX, anyway. On 06/28/2010 15:45, Gaffer wrote: On Monday 28 June 2010 18:54:39 DSinc wrote: I still use xDSL. Soon I will move to FIOS. Well, as I get smarter and answer my ?many? questions (another thread in play!) I am beginning (again) to have trouble with my xDSL connection. I suspect someone local (or ?) keeps camping out on my assigned IP addy from my ISP so that they can just dick with my xDSL modem or my Router. I know I have my xDSL modem set to a bridge mode. I suspect this makes it a straight wire connection to my Router's WAN port. I would never use Bridge Mode unless I was feeding a box that was specifically setup to be a firewall, something like IP Cop. Should I NOT use bridge mode in my TELCO-supplied modem I would be Double Nat-ng and have 2 firewalls. If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has nothing to do with NAT. I view this as excess overhead. Perhaps my bad. My router does both NAT and supports its' own firewall and SPI. Both of these selections have been activated since day one! You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall switched on and NAT switched on its not in Bridge Mode I think I have my Router as |strong| as I currently comprehend its' directions. Your router is not being used as anything but a modem. Its most valuable assets are being thrown away by it being configured as it is. Can you please share some more logic to this? I believe that my Router is my single point of 1st protection to Inbound stuff. Or, perhaps you and I are wired differently. This comment I do not understand. I doubt that we are wired differently. :-) But you are right, the router should be the 1st point of protection. If you really have Bridge Mode turned on, then its simply a modem without offering any protection. All Bridge Mode does is pass on the IP address that the ISP assigns to your connection. Turns out, I have to save Router logs and reboot the Router about every 3-7 days to recover a semi-firm connection. The Router is a DLink DGL-4300. All wireless is disabled. I use wired LAN only. I use a Dlink router. I have mine set to firewall and NAT. The firewall blocks all unrequested incoming traffic and lets everything out. NAT allows me to use a range of IP addresses that are not Internet routeable effectively allowing the use of several machines from the single IP that my ISP assigns me. Which incidentally changes each time I restart the router. OK. Understand this logic. Same-same. That's how life is here too. The problem is I have to re-boot the Router several times a day! This is a totally different issue ! This could simply be a
Re: [H] IP Question
Gaffer (Josh), My apologies. I somehow forgot that my traffic (queries) go to many places around our globe. It was not until our 1st exchange that I realized that you were sharing from a UK TELCO system I do not have. Once I figured this out (too late!), I did fail to step back in and toss some water on an increasing camp fire. Sorry. Yes, here in the USA, all xdsl is done via a TELCO supplied MODEM. AND, it is always (in my experience!) pre-loaded w/firmware to BE my Gateway/Router (Firewall/DNS/DHCP/WINS/XYZ?). Like One MODEM=One PC attached to the TELCO line. Legally (?) USA TELCOS have spent much energy trying to preserve this corporate TOS policy. Since joining the LIST, I have learned that I can re-admin these MODEMS and make them essentially DUMB DEMOD devices. Essentially, transfer the above 'services' to a device I buy and choose to use for my home/private LAN. If my TELCO suspects that I MIGHT have more that ONE PC attached to THEIR MODEM, they can query, and/or, deny me service. I accept this; as I have since 1996. Shortly I will leave xDSL. This whole topic will then become academic. No harm, no foul! Now that I fully understand your UK perspective, your points provide some things to think more about. My primary firewall lives at my Router. I chose my Router for the on-board SPI. My previous Router did not offer SPI; it was NAT only. Yes. I do use the internal client WinXP firewalls also. I thought I had a strong set of Router Inbound Rules set/allowed. Perhaps not. I will look deeper into this. (though, I admit, it does often put me to sleep!!) Perhaps my Router is no longer up to the task. Stuff happens, because time marches on. I have a new Router delivered and under investigation ATM! Best, Duncan On 06/30/2010 15:22, Gaffer wrote: Hi Josh, Duncan, On Wednesday 30 June 2010 08:03:57 J MacCraw wrote: Should I re-write the paragraph verbatim? What clarification do you need? You were talking about the ROUTER in bridge mode missing Duncan's query about the MODEM in bridge mode, that was the thrust of my response. Right I see the confusion. The only DSL modem that I know of that has internal configuration settings enabling it to be set into bridge mode, is actually a single port router. And yes I agree can do NAT. Here in the UK its very rare to see a straight modem. Virtually all the DSL boxes over here are usually four port routers, with or without wireless. I often set these to bridge mode when they are feeding a firewall appliance, which is not very common in a domestic environment. So apologies to Duncan if I've confused the issue. I hadn't realised that you were talking about two separate items of kit. Clearly he was asking from the standpoint of the modem, as would anyone talking DSL with half a clue as he very well seems to on this matter. I respect that Duncan comes [H] for answers I like to be sure he gets a clear, concise answers. In that case wouldn't it have been incumbent on you to have stepped in sooner to make clarification ! Quotes: If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has nothing to do with NAT. and You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall switched on and NAT switched on its not in Bridge Mode' On 6/29/2010 12:14 PM, Gaffer wrote: Hi Josh, On Tuesday 29 June 2010 08:00:18 Josh MacCraw wrote: Uh Gaffer needs to read process the info better! The only bridge mode here is on the *DSL MODEM* which is where the *ROUTER* sends the PPOE credentials (if even needed) instead of the modem resulting in a live IP on the router's WAN port instead of being double NAT'd. Would you care to clarify your comments. On 6/28/2010 3:47 PM, Gaffer wrote: Hi Duncan, On Monday 28 June 2010 21:50:10 DSinc wrote: Gaffer, My replies are inline TNX, anyway. On 06/28/2010 15:45, Gaffer wrote: On Monday 28 June 2010 18:54:39 DSinc wrote: I still use xDSL. Soon I will move to FIOS. Well, as I get smarter and answer my ?many? questions (another thread in play!) I am beginning (again) to have trouble with my xDSL connection. I suspect someone local (or ?) keeps camping out on my assigned IP addy from my ISP so that they can just dick with my xDSL modem or my Router. I know I have my xDSL modem set to a bridge mode. I suspect this makes it a straight wire connection to my Router's WAN port. I would never use Bridge Mode unless I was feeding a box that was specifically setup to be a firewall, something like IP Cop. Should I NOT use bridge mode in my TELCO-supplied modem I would be Double Nat-ng and have 2 firewalls. If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has nothing to do with NAT. I view this as excess overhead. Perhaps my bad. My router does both NAT and supports its' own firewall and SPI. Both of these
Re: [H] IP Question
Hi Duncan, On Wednesday 30 June 2010 21:23:39 DSinc wrote: Gaffer (Josh), My apologies. I somehow forgot that my traffic (queries) go to many places around our globe. It was not until our 1st exchange that I realized that you were sharing from a UK TELCO system I do not have. Once I figured this out (too late!), I did fail to step back in and toss some water on an increasing camp fire. Sorry. Not to worry. I'm equally guilty ! I just didn't realise you were talking about two items of equipment until Josh pointed it out. Yes, here in the USA, all xdsl is done via a TELCO supplied MODEM. AND, it is always (in my experience!) pre-loaded w/firmware to BE my Gateway/Router (Firewall/DNS/DHCP/WINS/XYZ?). Like One MODEM=One PC attached to the TELCO line. Legally (?) USA TELCOS have spent much energy trying to preserve this corporate TOS policy. Yes I can see the financial advantage to the teleco by doing that. Generally there is no objection to running several machines behind the router, over here. About the only time you might get a warning is if you are constantly running big data transfers. That comes under fair use rules. Since joining the LIST, I have learned that I can re-admin these MODEMS and make them essentially DUMB DEMOD devices. Essentially, transfer the above 'services' to a device I buy and choose to use for my home/private LAN. Yes ! You are quite right ! That is how they should be. I do see another advantage in having a separate device to the router. It would be a lot cheaper to replace if it got damaged. If my TELCO suspects that I MIGHT have more that ONE PC attached to THEIR MODEM, they can query, and/or, deny me service. I accept this; as I have since 1996. Shortly I will leave xDSL. This whole topic will then become academic. Its not easy for the telco to monitor every user for multiple machines, but they will monitor traffic and try to charge an additional fee for it. No harm, no foul! Now that I fully understand your UK perspective, your points provide some things to think more about. My primary firewall lives at my Router. I chose my Router for the on-board SPI. My previous Router did not offer SPI; it was NAT only. Can you tell me what SPI is ? Yes. I do use the internal client WinXP firewalls also. I thought I had a strong set of Router Inbound Rules set/allowed. Perhaps not. I will look deeper into this. (though, I admit, it does often put me to sleep!!) Basically a firewall (part of the router) should deny all incoming traffic but should allow all outgoing traffic. Basically it works like this, your machine makes a request (you typed an address into a browser) the firewall knows you made that request and lets it out. When the reply comes back the firewall knows that it is in response to your request and lets the reply in. You have ultimate control over how the firewall handles all the traffic. Google IPtables or Netfilter, that will give you a very good insight as to how it all works. Perhaps my Router is no longer up to the task. Stuff happens, because time marches on. I have a new Router delivered and under investigation ATM! Best, Duncan I'm often around, except when I'm not... -- Best Regards: Derrick. Running Open SuSE 11.1 KDE 3.5.10 Desktop. Pontefract Linux Users Group. plug @ play-net.co.uk
[H] How bad will this get for Dell?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178671/Update_Dell_knew_thousands_of_PCs_were_faulty_court_papers_say So, the suit alleges deceptive practices, etc. I'm wondering how bad this works out or if this turns into a major class action.
Re: [H] IP Question
Gaffer, I've chose to answer inline.. On 06/30/2010 16:55, Gaffer wrote: Hi Duncan, On Wednesday 30 June 2010 21:23:39 DSinc wrote: Gaffer (Josh), My apologies. I somehow forgot that my traffic (queries) go to many places around our globe. It was not until our 1st exchange that I realized that you were sharing from a UK TELCO system I do not have. Once I figured this out (too late!), I did fail to step back in and toss some water on an increasing camp fire. Sorry. Not to worry. I'm equally guilty ! I just didn't realise you were talking about two items of equipment until Josh pointed it out. No harm, no foul! Yes, here in the USA, all xdsl is done via a TELCO supplied MODEM. AND, it is always (in my experience!) pre-loaded w/firmware to BE my Gateway/Router (Firewall/DNS/DHCP/WINS/XYZ?). Like One MODEM=One PC attached to the TELCO line. Legally (?) USA TELCOS have spent much energy trying to preserve this corporate TOS policy. Yes I can see the financial advantage to the teleco by doing that. Generally there is no objection to running several machines behind the router, over here. About the only time you might get a warning is if you are constantly running big data transfers. That comes under fair use rules. Believe that over here it has to do with folks doing massive P2P transfers (I do not), and/or running some number of active 24/7 servers behind their Routers. This I do no eschew. I have no dog in this hunt. You sell me this service. Fine. I will USE it Since joining the LIST, I have learned that I can re-admin these MODEMS and make them essentially DUMB DEMOD devices. Essentially, transfer the above 'services' to a device I buy and choose to use for my home/private LAN. Yes ! You are quite right ! That is how they should be. I do see another advantage in having a separate device to the router. It would be a lot cheaper to replace if it got damaged. Yes, I've exchanged several MODEMS over the yearsdue to activities of Mother Nature! She always rulez! If my TELCO suspects that I MIGHT have more that ONE PC attached to THEIR MODEM, they can query, and/or, deny me service. I accept this; as I have since 1996. Shortly I will leave xDSL. This whole topic will then become academic. Its not easy for the telco to monitor every user for multiple machines, but they will monitor traffic and try to charge an additional fee for it. Perhaps not in the UK. Here, the TELCOS are very good at telling me each and every device I have connected to their bloody TELCO line. When the TELCO has monopoly status, it has freedom to invade my LAN and tell me all manner of traffic it finds questionable. Just the current field of play ATM. No harm, no foul! Now that I fully understand your UK perspective, your points provide some things to think more about. My primary firewall lives at my Router. I chose my Router for the on-board SPI. My previous Router did not offer SPI; it was NAT only. Can you tell me what SPI is ? My understanding is that SPI is defined as Stateful Packet Inspection. I am not capable of explaining this. I have spent some years reading and trying to understand the logic behind it. I understand just enough of this feature to decide that NO Router product should live at my IP Addy that does NOT contain this feature. It is a new feature since I was schooled in the Internet back in the 1970's. I'm lead to believe that it is a stronger form of 1st line protection; prior to my Router's firewall logic; and, in concert with NAT. No, I do not fully comprehend the science or logic. Yes, I do see and accept that it seems to work! (via WireShark!) Others may have other views/opinions. In this sphere, I am NOT an expert. I just use/buy the feature. I replaced my older Router (Netgear RT314) just to have this SPI feature. Yes. I do use the internal client WinXP firewalls also. I thought I had a strong set of Router Inbound Rules set/allowed. Perhaps not. I will look deeper into this. (though, I admit, it does often put me to sleep!!) Basically a firewall (part of the router) should deny all incoming traffic but should allow all outgoing traffic. Basically it works like this, your machine makes a request (you typed an address into a browser) the firewall knows you made that request and lets it out. When the reply comes back the firewall knows that it is in response to your request and lets the reply in. You have ultimate control over how the firewall handles all the traffic. Google IPtables or Netfilter, that will give you a very good insight as to how it all works. Understand. However, I am not willing to elevate my local protection schemes to any external/internet (Google) source. I am not quite settled on just how 'clean' the 'internet' is at this time. I watch, I read, I listen. I study. Perhaps my Router is no longer up to the task. Stuff happens, because time marches on. I have a new Router delivered and under
Re: [H] How bad will this get for Dell?
OK. Like this different from similar practices of Intel, HP, Compac, AMD, Motorola, Micron, GateWay, IBM, etc? Some bad stuff got out of the factory? If Dell has gross amounts of spare parts (their expense), small noise. If Dell has NO amount of spare parts (or plan), very big noise. This one will be fun to follow, however. Seems like we all like to beat up on Dell! And, maybe, because I use a Dell monitor and Dell switches (2)... :) And, they run great. I'd buy them all again. Best, Duncan On 06/30/2010 17:07, CW wrote: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178671/Update_Dell_knew_thousands_of_PCs_were_faulty_court_papers_say So, the suit alleges deceptive practices, etc. I'm wondering how bad this works out or if this turns into a major class action.
[H] IP address translation question..
I'm using a new script that temporarily creates a firewall rule to let an outside connection in on a centos box. I'm having a problem because the box sees the IP address of my router 63.193.xxx.xxx, instead of the IP address that has been granted rights 70.91.xxx.xxx. I'm not sure whether the problem is at the router or if it is related to the software that is connecting to the box (Android Sip client -sipdroid) Any insight or input is appreciated. When the script hits the centos webserver it is identified correctly, but when the SIP client tries to connect it is denied because it appears to be the routers IP addy instead of the external one. lopaka
Re: [H] IP address translation question..
Hey Lopaka :) Send me the script, sounds like something is up with it. Take care, Julian (Sabre) On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Robert Martin Jr. lopa...@pacbell.netwrote: I'm using a new script that temporarily creates a firewall rule to let an outside connection in on a centos box. I'm having a problem because the box sees the IP address of my router 63.193.xxx.xxx, instead of the IP address that has been granted rights 70.91.xxx.xxx. I'm not sure whether the problem is at the router or if it is related to the software that is connecting to the box (Android Sip client -sipdroid) Any insight or input is appreciated. When the script hits the centos webserver it is identified correctly, but when the SIP client tries to connect it is denied because it appears to be the routers IP addy instead of the external one. lopaka
[H] FIOS question 2.5?
I am not fully up to this level yet. I've gotten alot of offline suggistions (mostly about tangential wiring my home AND selecting FI-TV). Fine. FI-TV is not my focus ATM. I accept that I may get an RJ45 interface (ethernet) to a future ONT. ATM, I have no idea WHAT comes out of this RJ45 interface. IS it acceptable for me to question my 'pending future' ISP about THIS, AND, things like: (YES, all below is stuff from my Router set for xDSL! I understand much of this may NOT apply in the FIOS future!) Enable DNS Relay: ??? Enable RIP: ??? Enable DHCP Server: ??? WAN Mode: Static/DHCP/PPPoE/PPTP/L2TP ? UName: n/a PW: n/a Adress Mode: Dynamic IP/Static IP ? Reconnect Mode: On-Demand/Always On/Manual Max Idle Time: 0=infinite/??? Pri DNS Server: ??? (208.67.222.222 planned?) Sec DNS Server: ??? (208.67.220.220 planned?) MTU: ??? (currently 1492 (default=1492)) Link Drop Delay: ??? (currently 120sec.(0=infinite)) MAC Cloning Enabled: ??? (currently YES!!... ;) Thank you FIOS Users! Duncan
Re: [H] IP address translation question..
Hey buddy, long time no chat, hehe. The script is encrypted so I have no idea how it is set up. The jist of how it works is here http://nerdvittles.com/ and it's called the travelin man. I suspect the problem is with the SIP client on my phone, and the reason I suspect that is because the activation login on the centos system does list the proper IP address that has been authorized, but when I try to connect as the second step, the SIP client is denied due to ACL issues because it is listed as being my home IP address and not the remote address that was approved. I'm going to try a different SIP client and see how that fares and I'll let you know. Thanks bro lopaka From: Julian Zottl jzo...@radiantnetworks.net To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 3:09:33 PM Subject: Re: [H] IP address translation question.. Hey Lopaka :) Send me the script, sounds like something is up with it. Take care, Julian (Sabre) On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Robert Martin Jr. lopa...@pacbell.netwrote: I'm using a new script that temporarily creates a firewall rule to let an outside connection in on a centos box. I'm having a problem because the box sees the IP address of my router 63.193.xxx.xxx, instead of the IP address that has been granted rights 70.91.xxx.xxx. I'm not sure whether the problem is at the router or if it is related to the software that is connecting to the box (Android Sip client -sipdroid) Any insight or input is appreciated. When the script hits the centos webserver it is identified correctly, but when the SIP client tries to connect it is denied because it appears to be the routers IP addy instead of the external one. lopaka
