On Wednesday 24 September 2003 09:46 pm, Brent Thomson wrote:
> Ah, finally something I know a little something about.
Indeed you do. Thanks you very much for the info. Of course, the end result
is pretty much what I expected: That I have to pay them to get a public
(static) ip address. I suppose $6 isn't outrageous. The only problem is
that I currently have three different MAC addresses signed up (in my same
name, but their automatic system didn't seem to mind) for my three boxes, and
they're connecting to their router through my hub. I suppose I'll link them
all and just give one main server the external address to save $12/mo. My
only question is whether the extra $6 gives you more bandwidth in addition to
the static & public ip address, because what I really want is more bandwidth
to my main desktop and a public address for my main server. I guess I could
set one of them up as a DNS server, though I've never done that before.
Would y'all recommend that, or do you have any better suggestions?
> 208.187.x.x addresses don't have any ports blocked and are quite nice
> for things like SSHing into your box from school. The line from the
Yeah, that would be nice.
> 10.1.x.x addresses can see the world through port-blocked lenses. About
> all that gets through is HTTP, FTP, SSH, and a couple other things. The
-James Nickerson @ 10.1.20.186, 10.1.19.148, 10.1.28.61
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
