>>> 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 acknowledge
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 wha
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
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 useabl
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
>> 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
>> 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
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 wou
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
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.
>> 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
> t
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 surchar
> 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 y
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 l
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 service
>>
>> 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
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
> 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
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 in the following configuration
dsl non wireless model modem-switch-[a]windows xp home-[b
19 matches
Mail list logo
