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 delive
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
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. Bo
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
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 inclin
Re: [H] IP Question
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 > > router could be suspect and the electrical storm interference you > > refer to could be the reason. > > > >>> Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on > >>> your machine that reports your machines presence on the Internet. > >>> In all probability you wouldn't know if you had. > >> > >> Please share more about "tracking beacon's?" I will go do a > >> search/destroy on them as necessary. I have yet to find one/any > >> yet! > > > > OK ! how about the ones that you installed as part of installing > > the dr
Re: [H] IP Question
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. 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 router could be suspect and the electrical storm interference you refer to could be the reason. Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on your machine that reports your machines presence on the Internet. In all probability you wouldn't know if you had. Please share more about "tracking beacon's?" I will go do a search/destroy on them as necessary. I have yet to find one/any yet! OK ! how about the ones that you installed as part of installing the driver for a piece of hardware... Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal "baddie" in play; other than every scanner I have used comes up negative. What makes you think a scanner will find and report every "baddie" that you might have on your machine. Oh, I do not. I use what I use. I then use what is suggested to me by my betters. And, most of the time, I do find a hint from this List! I have both patience and trust in this List. This anomaly is just another matter of time at best. At worst, I do so hope the miscreant will eventually burn in hell! Thought? Suggestions
Re: [H] IP Question
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 router could be suspect and the electrical storm interference you refer to could be the reason. > > Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on > > your machine that reports your machines presence on the Internet. > > In all probability you wouldn't know if you had. > > Please share more about "tracking beacon's?" I will go do a > search/destroy on them as necessary. I have yet to find one/any yet! OK ! how about the ones that you installed as part of installing the driver for a piece of hardware... > >> Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal "baddie" > >> in play; other than every scanner I have used comes up negative. > > > > What makes you think a scanner will find and report every "baddie" > > that you might have on your machine. > > Oh, I do not. I use what I use. I then use what is suggested to me by > my betters. And, most of the time, I do find a hint from this List! I > have both patience and trust in this List. This anomaly is just > another matter of time at best. At worst, I do so hope the miscreant > will eventually burn in hell! > > >> Thought? Suggestions? Ideas? > >> Best, > >> Duncan Wireshark is good... -- Best Regards:
Re: [H] IP Question
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. 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! 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. 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! 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. Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on your machine that reports your machines presence on the Internet. In all probability you wouldn't know if you had. Please share more about "tracking beacon's?" I will go do a search/destroy on them as necessary. I have yet to find one/any yet! Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal "baddie" in play; other than every scanner I have used comes up negative. What makes you think a scanner will find and report every "baddie" that you might have on your machine. Oh, I do not. I use what I use. I then use what is suggested to me by my betters. And, most of the time, I do find a hint from this List! I have both patience and trust in this List. This anomaly is just another matter of time at best. At worst, I do so hope the miscreant will eventually burn in hell! Thought? Suggestions? Ideas? Best, Duncan
Re: [H] IP Question
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". > 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. > 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. > 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. Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on your machine that reports your machines presence on the Internet. In all probability you wouldn't know if you had. > Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal "baddie" in > play; other than every scanner I have used comes up negative. What makes you think a scanner will find and report every "baddie" that you might have on your machine. > Thought? Suggestions? Ideas? > Best, > Duncan -- Best Regards: Derrick. Running Open SuSE 11.1 KDE 3.5.10 Desktop. Pontefract Linux Users Group. plug @ play-net.co.uk
[H] IP Question
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 think I have my Router as |strong| as I currently comprehend its' directions. 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. 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. Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal "baddie" in play; other than every scanner I have used comes up negative. Thought? Suggestions? Ideas? Best, Duncan
