Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #7016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-15 18:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-15 18:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 00:59 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 10:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 04:45 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 13:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 06:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 14:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 14:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 15:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 08:24 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:39 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 17:35 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:42 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-15 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 02:41 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-16 19:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2013-01-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 05:31 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-21 00:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 17:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-21 21:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2013-01-22 10:11 +1100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-22 00:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 02:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-01-22 21:16 +0200
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 23:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-23 10:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 03:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 22:12 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:12 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-31 23:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-23 09:56 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:25 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:20 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:08 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:49 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 23:32 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:02 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:15 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 09:08 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 19:52 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:02 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:56 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-27 14:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 18:21 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 04:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 23:46 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-31 09:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:40 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 09:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:44 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 12:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 01:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 10:23 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:22 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2013-02-02 10:13 -0500
[OT] Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-02 17:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 18:16 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-02 20:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 14:51 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 21:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 00:45 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-03 00:52 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 11:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 13:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 13:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 15:08 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-05 10:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 15:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 17:59 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 19:40 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-05 14:17 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-06 02:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 03:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 00:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 16:24 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 17:57 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 13:07 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:24 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:19 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:17 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 15:47 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-02-04 03:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:14 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-06 09:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 13:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-07 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-09 13:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 17:19 +0000
ifconfig(8) vs. iproute Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-02-10 04:44 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-11 00:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-04 21:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kfZLs.42999$9N1.26640@newsfe13.iad> |
| In reply to | #7084 |
On 2013-01-23, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes: >> >> >> > This way all traffic will go via C1, which is what I am trying to >> >> >> > achieve. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? ?Having the router route 50.50.50.51 straight to C2 would be more >> >> >> efficient. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > A reason could be to run/implement some software application on C1 for >> >> > prioritization based on payload content, i.e. packet inspection. >> >> >> >> Which all slows everything down. The slow part of the network has already >> >> occured. His internal network can be Gb. The computer to isp is going to >> >> a few Mb. > > Yes, I agree. The purpose of this setup however is to implement/run/verify some packet inspection software on C1 which prioritize packets based on payload content. The purpose is not to try to get higher throughput to C2. If the purpose is to test, why do you care about an external IP address. Just send stuff from one computer to antoher on your private network via C2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 05:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df1b2dce-77a9-4ed5-a8eb-6c45aa5f85a9@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7085 |
> >> >>dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes: > > >> >> > This way all traffic will go via C1, which is what I am trying to > > >> >> > achieve. > > >> >> Why? ?Having the router route 50.50.50.51 straight to C2 would be more > > >> >> efficient. > > >> > A reason could be to run/implement some software application on C1 for > > >> > prioritization based on payload content, i.e. packet inspection. > > >> Which all slows everything down. The slow part of the network has already > > >> occured. His internal network can be Gb. The computer to isp is going to > > >> a few Mb. > > > Yes, I agree. The purpose of this setup however is to implement/run/verify some packet inspection software on C1 which prioritize packets based on payload content. The purpose is not to try to get higher throughput to C2. > > If the purpose is to test, why do you care about an external IP address. > Just send stuff from one computer to antoher on your private network via > C2. Because if for some reason an ISP/operator would like to use the packet inspection implementation/software in a site/node/server/VM, this would be a possible network setup, and the integration of the packet inspection implementation/software into their site/node could be "easy".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rVdMs.59791$H5.41136@newsfe28.iad> |
| In reply to | #7087 |
On 2013-01-24, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > This way all traffic will go via C1, which is what I am trying to >> >> >> >> > achieve. >> >> >> >> Why? ?Having the router route 50.50.50.51 straight to C2 would be more >> >> >> >> efficient. >> >> >> > A reason could be to run/implement some software application on C1 for >> >> >> > prioritization based on payload content, i.e. packet inspection. >> >> >> Which all slows everything down. The slow part of the network has already >> >> >> occured. His internal network can be Gb. The computer to isp is going to >> >> >> a few Mb. >> >> > Yes, I agree. The purpose of this setup however is to implement/run/verify some packet inspection software on C1 which prioritize packets based on payload content. The purpose is not to try to get higher throughput to C2. >> >> If the purpose is to test, why do you care about an external IP address. >> Just send stuff from one computer to antoher on your private network via >> C2. > > Because if for some reason an ISP/operator would like to use the > packet inspection implementation/software in a site/node/server/VM, > this would be a possible network setup, and the integration of the > packet inspection implementation/software into their site/node could > be "easy". Sorry, this started off as a discussion of a home network. Now suddenly the discussion is about "some ISP/operator would like to use....". Do you have dreams of "commercializing" this? If so why in the world are we talking about chincy (I donot want to buy a second IP) home network? And why would anyone want to use something from someone who has to ask on the internet on how to accomplish the task?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6abk89.2aa.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #7089 |
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:09:43 +0000, unruh Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> On 2013-01-24, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> >> >> > This way all traffic will go via C1, which is what I am trying
>>> >> >> > to
>>>
>>> >> >> > achieve.
>>>
>>> >> >> Why? ?Having the router route 50.50.50.51 straight to C2 would
>>> >> >> be more
>>>
>>> >> >> efficient.
>>>
>>> >> > A reason could be to run/implement some software application on
>>> >> > C1 for
>>>
>>> >> > prioritization based on payload content, i.e. packet inspection.
>>>
>>> >> Which all slows everything down. The slow part of the network has
>>> >> already
>>>
>>> >> occured. His internal network can be Gb. The computer to isp is
>>> >> going to
>>>
>>> >> a few Mb.
>>>
>>> > Yes, I agree. The purpose of this setup however is to
>>> > implement/run/verify some packet inspection software on C1 which
>>> > prioritize packets based on payload content. The purpose is not to
>>> > try to get higher throughput to C2.
>>>
>>> If the purpose is to test, why do you care about an external IP
>>> address.
>>> Just send stuff from one computer to antoher on your private network
>>> via C2.
>>
>> Because if for some reason an ISP/operator would like to use the packet
>> inspection implementation/software in a site/node/server/VM, this would
>> be a possible network setup, and the integration of the packet
>> inspection implementation/software into their site/node could be
>> "easy".
>
> Sorry, this started off as a discussion of a home network. Now suddenly
> the discussion is about "some ISP/operator would like to use....". Do
> you have dreams of "commercializing" this? If so why in the world are we
> talking about chincy (I donot want to buy a second IP) home network? And
> why would anyone want to use something from someone who has to ask on
> the internet on how to accomplish the task?
The more I read this thread the more I come to the conclusion that
someone wants to do something shady, possibly illegal.
Someone doesn't want to buy a second IP, yet won't elaborate on where
this other IP is coming from. Why is that? I'm guessing they don't have
regular physical access to the other machine either.
And if you have to come to Usenet to find a solution, it tells me that
the web has no answers. Probably for a good reason. Further, it tells
me that someone likely lacks the skill set to pull this off and stay out
of jail...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-01 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kef2g9$qi3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7145 |
On 31/01/13 23:28, cipher wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:09:43 +0000, unruh Inscribed upon the Golden > Tablets of Usenet thusly: > >> On 2013-01-24, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>>>> This way all traffic will go via C1, which is what I am trying >>>>>>>>> to >>>> >>>>>>>>> achieve. >>>> >>>>>>>> Why? ?Having the router route 50.50.50.51 straight to C2 would >>>>>>>> be more >>>> >>>>>>>> efficient. >>>> >>>>>>> A reason could be to run/implement some software application on >>>>>>> C1 for >>>> >>>>>>> prioritization based on payload content, i.e. packet inspection. >>>> >>>>>> Which all slows everything down. The slow part of the network has >>>>>> already >>>> >>>>>> occured. His internal network can be Gb. The computer to isp is >>>>>> going to >>>> >>>>>> a few Mb. >>>> >>>>> Yes, I agree. The purpose of this setup however is to >>>>> implement/run/verify some packet inspection software on C1 which >>>>> prioritize packets based on payload content. The purpose is not to >>>>> try to get higher throughput to C2. >>>> >>>> If the purpose is to test, why do you care about an external IP >>>> address. >>>> Just send stuff from one computer to antoher on your private network >>>> via C2. >>> >>> Because if for some reason an ISP/operator would like to use the packet >>> inspection implementation/software in a site/node/server/VM, this would >>> be a possible network setup, and the integration of the packet >>> inspection implementation/software into their site/node could be >>> "easy". >> >> Sorry, this started off as a discussion of a home network. Now suddenly >> the discussion is about "some ISP/operator would like to use....". Do >> you have dreams of "commercializing" this? If so why in the world are we >> talking about chincy (I donot want to buy a second IP) home network? And >> why would anyone want to use something from someone who has to ask on >> the internet on how to accomplish the task? > > The more I read this thread the more I come to the conclusion that > someone wants to do something shady, possibly illegal. > > Someone doesn't want to buy a second IP, yet won't elaborate on where > this other IP is coming from. Why is that? I'm guessing they don't have > regular physical access to the other machine either. > > And if you have to come to Usenet to find a solution, it tells me that > the web has no answers. Probably for a good reason. Further, it tells > me that someone likely lacks the skill set to pull this off and stay out > of jail... > It doesn't matter whether they have skills or not. You cant subvert IP packets without subverting the ISPs routing tables. You can send a packet with any source address you like. But you will never get a reply. Unless you have access to BGP and are a trusted peer, and boy, if you start broadcasting BGP updates for someone elses IP range you can and WILL be disconnected pronto. No matter WHO you are. BTDTGTTS. In fact unless you are a tier 1 carrier, its unlikely that your BGP updates will be honored anyway. The tier 1s will filter them. Its like the people who persist in using my domain for the 'send' part of their emails. They can send, but no one will ever reply. They come to my servers and - unless they match me personally, get rejected. There are many things that the IETF didnt think of, but routing was not one of them. What you do on your own LAN or OSPF/RIP WAN is one thing: what you do outside on the Internet is strictly limited by design, > > -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <P-ednenBHOKvi53MnZ2dnUVZ5uqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #7072 |
On 01/23/2013 12:53 AM, dspfun wrote: > > The home-router is connected to the ISP router via DHCP. And the ISP > knows how to route to the public IP-address of compter2. > What, exactly, is a "home-router?" And is there something special about the "switch" that you keep mentioning it? > > C2 will have one NIC with two IP-addresses which have the same MAC > (i.e. IP-alias), 50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3. > > In the incoming direction: > The home-router will be configured with a next hop of 192.168.1.2 (C1) > for packets destined to 50.50.50.51. > You have mentioned you have been assigned a single IP address, e.g.: 50.50.50.50, by your ISP. How does the ISP know to route packets destined for .51 to .50? -- James Moe jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y1VLs.122725$tG.7450@newsfe15.iad> |
| In reply to | #7072 |
The process sounds really complex. I do not understand it all, but why not just have the router be issued the static IP and have router do port forwarding to computer 2. That, it seems to me, is all you are trying to do anyway by and expensive, complicated, and thus potentially buggy, process. On 2013-01-23, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 22 Jan, 20:05, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: >> On 2013-01-22,dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lets be fair. He did not state that, but some of us wondered if that was >> >> the case. That is impossible, and will also get you disconnected from >> >> the net by his ISP. >> >> >> If we are charitable, then he is on a network and has received a public IP >> >> address from his ISP for Computer2 (C2). He also has a router which connects a private >> >> address network together (say 10.x.y.z) That router presumably also has >> >> a public IP address on his ISP's network. How can he get C2 to be able >> >> to talk to C1 which is on the private network? IF this is the question, >> >> then there are at least 2 possibilities. >> >> > Yes, this is the question. >> >> >> a) put two network cards into C2, one of which has the public address, >> >> and the other has and address on the private network. Set up the routing >> >> tables on C2 so that any packets for the rest of the world go out >> >> through the first interface, and any for the private (10.0.0.0 netmask >> >> 255.0.0.0) go out the other. >> >> > I guess two network cards is not really needed, one network card can >> > have two IP-addresses (alias), both the private and public IP-address. >> > Both IP-addresses will then have the same MAC-address. >> >> > # ip addr add 30.30.30.30/24 brd + dev eth0 >> > # ip addr add 10.10.10.11/24 brd + dev eth0 >> >> > or similar using ifconfig: >> >> > # ifconfig eth0 30.30.30.30 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > # ifconfig eth0:0 10.10.10.11 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> >> > Or will this cause some problem since both the private and public IP- >> > address will have the same MAC-address? >> >> Never tried this so I do not know, but that public address MUST be >> assigned by your ISP, who can then put it into his MAC tables. >> We have no idea how the OP is connected to his ISP. modem? dhcp? >> University lan, company lan,....? >> >> > > The home-router is connected to the ISP router via DHCP. And the ISP > knows how to route to the public IP-address of compter2. > > In my original post I tried to simplify what I want to achieve. But > what I am trying to setup is the same network as in the original post, > but all traffic (incoming and outgoing) should go via computer1 which > has the internal IP-address. Computer1 could then potentially become a > bottleneck, but it will have enough capacity. > > Both computer1 and computer2 are linux machines. > > So the question is really how to setup a network like this. I don't > want to use more than one public IP-addresses for computer2 and one > public IP-address on the outside of my home-router which connects to > the ISP-router. Computer2/home-router should not be using NAT. > > To get this network setup working more private addresses can be used. > > Is the following a feasible network setup (I have changed the IP- > numbering from the original post to possibly make it clearer)? > > C2 will have one NIC with two IP-addresses which have the same MAC > (i.e. IP-alias), 50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3. > > In the incoming direction: > The home-router will be configured with a next hop of 192.168.1.2 (C1) > for packets destined to 50.50.50.51. > C1 will be configured with a next hop of 192.168.1.3 (C2) for packets > destined to 50.50.50.51. > Then C2 will be configured to forward packets to 50.50.50.51 when it > receives packets on its interface with 192.168.1.3. > > In the outgoing direction: > C2 will be configured with a default gateway of 192.168.1.2 (C1), and > be configured to put source address 50.50.50.51 in its packets. > C1 will be configured with a default gateway of 192.168.1.1. > Home-router will be configured with a default gateway of the ISP- > router. > > Resulting in a network setup like this: > > C2 > C1 192.168.1.3 > 192.168.1.2 50.50.50.51 > | | > ----------------------- > | switch | > ----------------------- > | > 192.168.1.1 > Home-router > 50.50.50.50 > | > ISP-router > > > > Is this the easiest/best/most standard way of setting up the network, > given that NAT should not be used for C2? > > This way all traffic will go via C1, which is what I am trying to > achieve. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkg0mrh.32o.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7081 |
On 2013-01-23, unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > On 2013-01-23, dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 22 Jan, 20:05, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: >>> On 2013-01-22,dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > The process sounds really complex. I do not understand it all, but why > not just have the router be issued the static IP and have router do port > forwarding to computer 2. That, it seems to me, is all you are trying to > do anyway by and expensive, complicated, and thus potentially buggy, process. If computer1 has the capacity to perform 'deep packet inspection' on all traffic going to computer2, it might as well do the job of the router as well - and perhaps the 'modem' part of the internet connection too. It'll need a seperate NIC for each local computer, as well as the NIC connecting to the internet. I don't know what the OP's objection to NAT is, but as the ISP seems to have allocated only one internet IP number logic requires that NAT will have to be used. 'Port forwarding' is the conventional way of running a publicly accessible server (or servers) on one computer while preventing any external access to the other machines on the local network (but of course still letting the local machines connect to the internet). Most, if not all, routers and modem/routers sold on the high street for home or small office use are capable of doing that - but not necessarily the 'deep packet inspection' the OP seems to want. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 05:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1de5ece-fc0f-4a49-8347-2d2cc076b0db@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7086 |
On 23 Jan, 22:51, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote: > On 2013-01-23, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > > > On 2013-01-23,dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22 Jan, 20:05, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > >>> On 2013-01-22,dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > The process sounds really complex. I do not understand it all, but why > > not just have the router be issued the static IP and have router do port > > forwarding to computer 2. That, it seems to me, is all you are trying to > > do anyway by and expensive, complicated, and thus potentially buggy, process. > > If computer1 has the capacity to perform 'deep packet inspection' on all > traffic going to computer2, it might as well do the job of the router as > well - and perhaps the 'modem' part of the internet connection too. It'll > need a seperate NIC for each local computer, as well as the NIC connecting > to the internet. Yes, I agree, but the purpose is to create some packet inspection software, which can be used by an ISP/operator which will run it on their router/VM. The ISP/operator would then have to route all traffic (inside their router/node internal private network) through a computer/ VM running the packet inspection software. > I don't know what the OP's objection to NAT is, but as the ISP seems to > have allocated only one internet IP number logic requires that NAT will > have to be used. 'Port forwarding' is the conventional way of running a > publicly accessible server (or servers) on one computer while preventing > any external access to the other machines on the local network (but of > course still letting the local machines connect to the internet). Most, if > not all, routers and modem/routers sold on the high street for home or > small office use are capable of doing that - but not necessarily the 'deep > packet inspection' the OP seems to want. > Yes, I agree NAT is probably a good candidate. One issue though could be that there is some requirement of applications on C2 to have a public IP-address, since they might not work otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ke30no$1huf$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7072 |
dspfun a écrit : > > Is the following a feasible network setup (I have changed the IP- > numbering from the original post to possibly make it clearer)? > > C2 will have one NIC with two IP-addresses which have the same MAC > (i.e. IP-alias), 50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3. > > In the incoming direction: > The home-router will be configured with a next hop of 192.168.1.2 (C1) > for packets destined to 50.50.50.51. Ok. Don't forget to enable IP forwarding. > C1 will be configured with a next hop of 192.168.1.3 (C2) for packets > destined to 50.50.50.51. No need to use C2's private address as the next hop here. C1 can (and should IMO) just have a direct route to 50.50.50.51. > Then C2 will be configured to forward packets to 50.50.50.51 when it > receives packets on its interface with 192.168.1.3. Huh ? What do you mean ? C2 owns 50.50.50.51, there is no point in forwarding packets with a local destination address. And what does 192.168.1.3 have to do here ? We are *NOT* talking about NAT here, are we ? Just plain IP forwarding ? > In the outgoing direction: > C2 will be configured with a default gateway of 192.168.1.2 (C1), and > be configured to put source address 50.50.50.51 in its packets. > C1 will be configured with a default gateway of 192.168.1.1. > Home-router will be configured with a default gateway of the ISP- > router. Ok. One problem could be that C1 may send ICMP Redirect messages to C2 advertising that there is a shorter route using directly 192.168.1.1 as the next hop. So you may want to disable sending such messages on C1 or accepting them on C2. See /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/<interface>/*redirects > Resulting in a network setup like this: > > C2 > C1 192.168.1.3 > 192.168.1.2 50.50.50.51 > | | > ----------------------- > | switch | > ----------------------- > | > 192.168.1.1 > Home-router > 50.50.50.50 > | > ISP-router > > Is this the easiest/best/most standard way of setting up the network, > given that NAT should not be used for C2? Yes. Now it all relies on the capability of the router to properly forward traffic to and from 50.50.50.51, without adding any NAT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 12:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ke31rm$1i7q$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7056 |
unruh a écrit : > > If we are charitable, then he is on a network and has received a public IP > address from his ISP for Computer2 (C2). He also has a router which connects a private > address network together (say 10.x.y.z) That router presumably also has > a public IP address on his ISP's network. How can he get C2 to be able > to talk to C1 which is on the private network? IF this is the question, > then there are at least 2 possibilities. > a) put two network cards into C2, one of which has the public address, > and the other has and address on the private network. Ridiculous. One network interface can have multiple IP addresses. Besides it would imply that both interfaces are connected to the same broadcast domain, which is even more ridiculous and may lead to problems if rp_filter is enabled on C2. > b) Set the router to have the public IP address, but install it so that > any packets that come to the ports he wants open to go directly to the > private IP of C2. (port forwarding). NAT adds complexity and breaks things, therefore it should be avoided as much as possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-21 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <NcOdnY18A9FsTmDNnZ2dnUVZ5uQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #7054 |
On 01/21/2013 02:56 PM, Bit Twister wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:15:17 +0000, Whiskers wrote: > >> But you haven't explained what you're trying to achieve or why you think it >> necessary to have two WAN IPs or what your objection is to NAT. If we >> knew that it would be easier to offer advice. > > Keep in mind, one of the original requirements was to have any public > ip address not supplied by his ISP to route to his router without > buying a second ip address. > Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home Internet connection through an ISP. -- James Moe jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VEkLs.131349$2v.24013@newsfe05.iad> |
| In reply to | #7058 |
On 2013-01-21, James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> wrote: > On 01/21/2013 02:56 PM, Bit Twister wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:15:17 +0000, Whiskers wrote: >> >>> But you haven't explained what you're trying to achieve or why you think it >>> necessary to have two WAN IPs or what your objection is to NAT. If we >>> knew that it would be easier to offer advice. >> >> Keep in mind, one of the original requirements was to have any public >> ip address not supplied by his ISP to route to his router without >> buying a second ip address. >> > Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home > Internet connection through an ISP. Actually it may be, depending on what he really wants. The router may have the ability to do port forwarding. Thus the ISP gives the router an address (fixed if one really wants to be able to connect from anywhere in the world) and the router is set up so that it port forwards to one of the computers in the private network. That router IP address will then be the public address of his computer. When a packet comes to the router, the router looks at it and if the port is one of the forwarded ports, it immediately sends that packet to the internal addreess and port. IF the ISPs address is dynamic, it becomes more difficult. Since the outside world has no idea what the IP address is, the internal machine has to get its address out beyond the router. It is easy to handle this if you always connect via a specific outside machine. But if not, then it is pretty hard, not least because it takes a few days for dns to make an IP<->name propagate out to the web. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-21 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4MmdnQZrVe4Rr2PNnZ2dnUVZ5vqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #7059 |
On 01/21/2013 05:00 PM, unruh wrote: >>> >> Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home >> Internet connection through an ISP. > > Actually it may be, depending on what he really wants. The router may > have the ability to do port forwarding. [...] > How would port forwarding expose an IP address on the OP's internal netowrk? The "public" IP is still buried behind the router/switch/modem/whatever. -- James Moe jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <inBLs.86122$LS5.67567@newsfe10.iad> |
| In reply to | #7062 |
On 2013-01-22, James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> wrote: > On 01/21/2013 05:00 PM, unruh wrote: >>>> >>> Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home >>> Internet connection through an ISP. >> >> Actually it may be, depending on what he really wants. The router may >> have the ability to do port forwarding. [...] >> > How would port forwarding expose an IP address on the OP's internal > netowrk? The "public" IP is still buried behind the > router/switch/modem/whatever. The public IP would belong to the router, not the internal computer. Port forwarding on the router is enabled, so that when a packet comes in to its public address, on port x it looks up a table in its memory, which tells is that any packet addressed to port x should be sent to the internal computer's port y ( where y is in that internal table and often y is the same as x) This is similar to NAT except for NAT that internal table is dynamic, while this is static and the port x is usually the same as y, while in NAT, x is usually much much larger than y. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ke328d$1idk$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7066 |
unruh a écrit : > > The public IP would belong to the router, not the internal computer. The OP has made clear enough that the public address should belong to the internal host C2, not the router. Why on earth some people here insist in using NAT when it is not necessary ? > Port forwarding on the router is enabled, so that when a packet comes in > to its public address, on port x it looks up a table in its memory, > which tells is that any packet addressed to port x should be sent to the > internal computer's port y ( where y is in that internal table and often > y is the same as x) This is similar to NAT Port forwarding is not similar to NAT, it *IS* a form of NAT. > except for NAT that internal table is dynamic What you refer to is masquerading. It is just another form of NAT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | s_dubrovich@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <adc895f9-78a5-495e-be4d-efed04361d40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7059 |
On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:00:53 PM UTC-6, unruh wrote: > On 2013-01-21, James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> wrote: > > > On 01/21/2013 02:56 PM, Bit Twister wrote: > > >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:15:17 +0000, Whiskers wrote: > > >> > > >>> But you haven't explained what you're trying to achieve or why you think it > > >>> necessary to have two WAN IPs or what your objection is to NAT. If we > > >>> knew that it would be easier to offer advice. > > >> > > >> Keep in mind, one of the original requirements was to have any public > > >> ip address not supplied by his ISP to route to his router without > > >> buying a second ip address. > > >> > > > Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home > > > Internet connection through an ISP. > > > > Actually it may be, depending on what he really wants. The router may > > have the ability to do port forwarding. Thus the ISP gives the router an > > address (fixed if one really wants to be able to connect from anywhere > > in the world) and the router is set up so that it port forwards to one > > of the computers in the private network. That router IP address will > > then be the public address of his computer. When a packet comes to the > > router, the router looks at it and if the port is one of the forwarded > > ports, it immediately sends that packet to the internal addreess and > > port. > > > > IF the ISPs address is dynamic, it becomes more difficult. Since the > > outside world has no idea what the IP address is, the internal machine > > has to get its address out beyond the router. It is easy to handle this > > if you always connect via a specific outside machine. But if not, then > > it is pretty hard, not least because it takes a few days for dns to make > > an IP<->name propagate out to the web. > > > > > If his ip number isn't static then it may be helpful to use the services of a proxy like http://dyn.com/dns an update client renews a changed ip in about 20 seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsBLs.40955$j95.14947@newsfe31.iad> |
| In reply to | #7065 |
On 2013-01-22, s_dubrovich@yahoo.com <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:00:53 PM UTC-6, unruh wrote: >> On 2013-01-21, James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> wrote: >> >> > On 01/21/2013 02:56 PM, Bit Twister wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:15:17 +0000, Whiskers wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> But you haven't explained what you're trying to achieve or why you think it >> >> >>> necessary to have two WAN IPs or what your objection is to NAT. If we >> >> >>> knew that it would be easier to offer advice. >> >> >> >> >> >> Keep in mind, one of the original requirements was to have any public >> >> >> ip address not supplied by his ISP to route to his router without >> >> >> buying a second ip address. >> >> >> >> >> > Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home >> >> > Internet connection through an ISP. >> >> >> >> Actually it may be, depending on what he really wants. The router may >> >> have the ability to do port forwarding. Thus the ISP gives the router an >> >> address (fixed if one really wants to be able to connect from anywhere >> >> in the world) and the router is set up so that it port forwards to one >> >> of the computers in the private network. That router IP address will >> >> then be the public address of his computer. When a packet comes to the >> >> router, the router looks at it and if the port is one of the forwarded >> >> ports, it immediately sends that packet to the internal addreess and >> >> port. >> >> >> >> IF the ISPs address is dynamic, it becomes more difficult. Since the >> >> outside world has no idea what the IP address is, the internal machine >> >> has to get its address out beyond the router. It is easy to handle this >> >> if you always connect via a specific outside machine. But if not, then >> >> it is pretty hard, not least because it takes a few days for dns to make >> >> an IP<->name propagate out to the web. >> >> >> >> > > > If his ip number isn't static then it may be helpful to use the services of a proxy like > > http://dyn.com/dns > > an update client renews a changed ip in about 20 seconds. Unfortunately while dyn.com may alter their tables, that does not mean that the computer at prasad.mo knows about it until days have gone by. Even if you put on a very short time to live on the address, others do not have to abide by those. Ie, in general you will find that the new IP address is not available via dns for quite a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kdmprf$sgn$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7068 |
On 22/01/13 19:07, unruh wrote: > On 2013-01-22, s_dubrovich@yahoo.com <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:00:53 PM UTC-6, unruh wrote: >>> On 2013-01-21, James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/21/2013 02:56 PM, Bit Twister wrote: >>> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:15:17 +0000, Whiskers wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> But you haven't explained what you're trying to achieve or why you think it >>> >>>>>> necessary to have two WAN IPs or what your objection is to NAT. If we >>> >>>>>> knew that it would be easier to offer advice. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Keep in mind, one of the original requirements was to have any public >>> >>>>> ip address not supplied by his ISP to route to his router without >>> >>>>> buying a second ip address. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> Based on his OP, what he wants is not achievable with the usual home >>> >>>> Internet connection through an ISP. >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually it may be, depending on what he really wants. The router may >>> >>> have the ability to do port forwarding. Thus the ISP gives the router an >>> >>> address (fixed if one really wants to be able to connect from anywhere >>> >>> in the world) and the router is set up so that it port forwards to one >>> >>> of the computers in the private network. That router IP address will >>> >>> then be the public address of his computer. When a packet comes to the >>> >>> router, the router looks at it and if the port is one of the forwarded >>> >>> ports, it immediately sends that packet to the internal addreess and >>> >>> port. >>> >>> >>> >>> IF the ISPs address is dynamic, it becomes more difficult. Since the >>> >>> outside world has no idea what the IP address is, the internal machine >>> >>> has to get its address out beyond the router. It is easy to handle this >>> >>> if you always connect via a specific outside machine. But if not, then >>> >>> it is pretty hard, not least because it takes a few days for dns to make >>> >>> an IP<->name propagate out to the web. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> If his ip number isn't static then it may be helpful to use the services of a proxy like >> >> http://dyn.com/dns >> >> an update client renews a changed ip in about 20 seconds. > > Unfortunately while dyn.com may alter their tables, that does not mean > that the computer at prasad.mo knows about it until days have gone by. That's why the time-out (TTL) at dyndns is set to 60 seconds. There are few dns caches so broken they will not honour that. > Even if you put on a very short time to live on the address, others do > not have to abide by those. They do, if they are top remain within spec. >Ie, in general you will find that the new IP > address is not available via dns for quite a while. > > Having used this, it is less than 2 minutes typically. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | s_dubrovich@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-22 19:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa852258-0095-4b36-b95a-06483851bcbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7068 |
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:07:55 PM UTC-6, unruh wrote: > On 2013-01-22, s_dubrovich@yahoo.com <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > http://dyn.com/dns > > > > > > an update client renews a changed ip in about 20 seconds. > > > > Unfortunately while dyn.com may alter their tables, that does not mean > > that the computer at prasad.mo knows about it until days have gone by. > > Even if you put on a very short time to live on the address, others do > > not have to abide by those. Ie, in general you will find that the new IP > > address is not available via dns for quite a while. It is a proxy service. prasad.mo has the proxy server address, that never changes. The next hop from the proxy server to the home server will show 404 if the ISP changes its ip address dynamically. Then monitoring software on the home server reports to the proxy server its new ip address. From that point, according to dyn, they say it takes 20 seconds, to re-establish the routing. That is good enough for a home server/NAS. If that isn't good enough. there are upscale options, such as paying extra for a static ip, or a business account. Cost for cost, it may be cheaper to pay for a web server account on a commercial server, their up time and convenience would be hard to beat. The OP hasn't been clear on his intent, he's asked some vague routing questions. He hasn't said what services he intends to offer; file server, web server, mail server, ???. Each service has it's own standard port(s) number. (I'm saying this to the OP, it's not clear that he may know it.) So a web server listens on port 80, or maybe port 8080. So you not only need a reachable address, but also the proper port to access a service as part of that. -say 192.0.2.2:8080 - you also need the software stack to support the service, otherwise the protocols are not in place, meaning no connection. Normally, you register a web domain name such as mycrib.com, as part of that is its address: 192.0.2.2, the info is stored in a dns server along with its address so that routing can take place to the name mycrib.com (i.e. 192.0.2.2: +port for service). Of course, you have to own 192.0.2.2, it is what the ISP gives you for a ip address. That is the public address to your modem/router (let's call that the 'street side', and your computer the 'house side'. Your computers on the house side use a private network address to each other and the modem/router, say 192.168.5.nn, each device (2 computers in your case, but could be a network printer, dedicated NAS, etc.) has its own unique value for .nn, to tell them apart. This includes the modem/router as 'gateway', say 192.168.5.1, the routing tables in the modem/router direct the street side traffic to the house side private network address for the device. Maybe you (OP) know this stuff, it's hard to tell. If you have recent hardware, I'm talking about the modem/router with multiple ethernet ports, then type its gateway address into your web browser and see if you get a responce, http://192.168.5.1 (if that is what it is). Usually, you'll get its configuration menu. Search the web for its make and model, you may find the manufacturer's manual on it. hth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web