Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #4630 > unrolled thread

ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-18 12:38 +0000
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-07-18 14:59 +0000
      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-18 15:15 +0000
        Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-07-18 20:01 +0300
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-18 22:06 +0000
      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-18 16:35 +0000
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> - 2020-07-18 11:12 -0400
      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-18 16:44 +0000
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? John McCue <jmccue@jmclin1.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> - 2020-07-18 16:33 +0000
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-07-18 13:26 -0400
      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-18 17:56 +0000
        Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-07-18 14:36 -0400
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-18 19:06 +0000
            Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-18 22:13 +0000
              Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-18 19:36 -0400
                Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-19 12:56 +0200
                  Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-07-28 21:26 -0700
                    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-29 10:40 +0200
                      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-08-01 21:22 -0700
                        Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-02 13:16 +0200
                          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-08-03 13:57 -0700
                            Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-08-03 23:07 +0200
              Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-19 01:40 +0000
                Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-18 22:10 -0400
                Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-19 12:59 +0200
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Giovanni <lsodgf0@home.net.it> - 2020-07-19 10:10 +0200
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2020-07-19 15:09 +0200
      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-19 17:35 +0000
        Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-20 02:33 +0000
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-20 02:55 +0000
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-19 23:32 -0400
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-19 23:46 -0400
            Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-20 06:01 +0000
              Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-20 20:16 -0400
              Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-08-01 21:24 -0700
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Giovanni <lsodgf0@home.net.it> - 2020-07-20 09:10 +0200
            Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-20 11:31 +0000
              Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-07-20 17:49 +0300
                Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-20 15:32 +0000
                  Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-07-20 21:01 +0300
                  Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-07-20 13:04 -0500
              Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-20 20:11 +0000
                Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-20 20:42 +0000
                  Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-07-20 21:11 +0000
                    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-21 01:52 +0000
                      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? dyrmak <dyrmak@quelite.terre.invalid> - 2020-07-21 08:35 +0000
    Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-21 10:34 +0000
      Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Giovanni <lsodgf0@home.net.it> - 2020-07-21 13:48 +0200
        Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-07-21 13:35 +0000
          Re: ftp,ssh,http blocked by ISP? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-21 16:03 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#4690

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 8/2/20 4:16 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>
> Well, in Spain everybody needs to use port 25 to send mail legally and
> normally, because that's how the mail servers at the ISP are setup. My
> ISP refuses to set up the submission port at their side.

And that refutes what I said how?  Sure, you connect to your ISP's
server at port 25.  But that's still INSIDE the ISP's network.. They
shouldn't have 25 open to the world.

>
>>
>> If ISPs in Spain aren't blocking port 25 as a rule, then they're all
>> assholes.
>
> Oh, thankyou.
>
>>
>> Seriously man, what percentage need 25 open? 1%?  0.01%?
>
> Everybody that sends mail here using a tool like Thunderbird or >Outlook.

Bullshit. You apparently don't understand how email works.  Port 25 does
not need to be open to the OUTSIDE world.

>
> And there are no more problems with spam that elsewhere. Just try to
> send spam mail directly via the open port 25, it simply fails.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4691

On 03/08/2020 22.57, Johann Beretta wrote:
> On 8/2/20 4:16 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>>
>> Well, in Spain everybody needs to use port 25 to send mail legally and
>> normally, because that's how the mail servers at the ISP are setup. My
>> ISP refuses to set up the submission port at their side.
> 
> And that refutes what I said how?  Sure, you connect to your ISP's
> server at port 25.  But that's still INSIDE the ISP's network.. They
> shouldn't have 25 open to the world.

I also connect to gmail to send email using port 25 from Spain just 
fine. Of course I use Internet, not my ISP "inside" network.


>>> If ISPs in Spain aren't blocking port 25 as a rule, then they're all
>>> assholes.
>>
>> Oh, thankyou.
>>
>>>
>>> Seriously man, what percentage need 25 open? 1%?  0.01%?
>>
>> Everybody that sends mail here using a tool like Thunderbird or >Outlook.
> 
> Bullshit. You apparently don't understand how email works.  Port 25 does
> not need to be open to the OUTSIDE world.

It is your opinion.

I do understand it quite well.

If you resort to insulting or SHOUTING, then you lose the discussion. 
You do not have reasons.

I could say instead that blocking port 25 is stupid and goes against 
liberty and things about assholes. But I will not.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4645

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:13:07 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
 >>
 >> OK, done.  But man nmap is completely incomprehensible to me.  I know
 >> pings are blocked so I need -Pn.  When I do nmap -Pn myhost I get
 >>
 >> 998 filtered ports
 >> 22/tcp closed
 >> 50001 open
 >>
 >> I could move my ftp and http stuff to the cloud computer.
 >> That leaves ssh as the only essential service. If assume 22
 >> and 22xx are blocked, could I use 50001 as my ssh port?

 > You can use any number you want as your ssh port (of
 > course if it is the number of some crucial service then
 > that could cause trouble) Then on your router port
 > forward that port to the computer/port you actually want
 > to use.

I know how to port-forward, use non-standard ports,
configure sshd, etc. My question is: if nmap says 50001 is
"open", can I use that as a non-standard port for ssh
without being blocked by my ISP? And I don't know what "998
filtered ports" means. And can nmap confirm that ftp and
http and even a non-standard port like 22xx for ssh are
blocked?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4646

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 21:40:28 -0400, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
> I know how to port-forward, use non-standard ports,
> configure sshd, etc. My question is: if nmap says 50001 is
> "open", can I use that as a non-standard port for ssh
> without being blocked by my ISP? And I don't know what "998
> filtered ports" means. And can nmap confirm that ftp and
> http and even a non-standard port like 22xx for ssh are
> blocked?

No. If nmap says the port is already open, then it's in use by some other
service.

 From nmap output of another computer on my lan, it has ...
993/tcp open  imaps

That means the port is has already been opened by the imaps daemon on that
system, which responded to the nmap tcp syn packet.

When an isp blocks incoming new tcp connections, they normally only block
tcp ports 1 to 1024, the standard range used by servers.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org to davidwhodgins@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4649

On 19/07/2020 03.40, Bob Tennent wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:13:07 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
>   >>
>   >> OK, done.  But man nmap is completely incomprehensible to me.  I know
>   >> pings are blocked so I need -Pn.  When I do nmap -Pn myhost I get
>   >>
>   >> 998 filtered ports
>   >> 22/tcp closed
>   >> 50001 open
>   >>
>   >> I could move my ftp and http stuff to the cloud computer.
>   >> That leaves ssh as the only essential service. If assume 22
>   >> and 22xx are blocked, could I use 50001 as my ssh port?
> 
>   > You can use any number you want as your ssh port (of
>   > course if it is the number of some crucial service then
>   > that could cause trouble) Then on your router port
>   > forward that port to the computer/port you actually want
>   > to use.
> 
> I know how to port-forward, use non-standard ports,
> configure sshd, etc. My question is: if nmap says 50001 is
> "open", can I use that as a non-standard port for ssh
> without being blocked by my ISP?

No. nmap is telling you that something is using and responding already 
on port 50001

> And I don't know what "998
> filtered ports" means. And can nmap confirm that ftp and
> http and even a non-standard port like 22xx for ssh are
> blocked?

Weird, but your ISP might be examining traffic and blocking ports /he/ 
knows /you/ use.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4647

On 07/18/2020 02:38 PM, Bob Tennent wrote:
> For years I've used port-forwarding in my router to allow external
> access to ftp, ssh, and http servers. Recently, this no longer works.
> The servers are running normally and can be accessed internally. I
> can even access them via the router IP address, showing that
> port-forwarding is still working. I've also tried port-fowarding and
> DMZ in the modem, to no avail. So my conjecture is that the ISP has
> decided to block packets it considers unworthy before they reach the
> modem.
>
> Is this at all likely? How can I test/confirm the conjecture? If it
> is confirmed, what can I do? Needless to say, ISP "technical support"
> has so far been useless.

I would check if your ISP ha changed its policies.  The range of 
available IP addresses is getting a very precious resource.  Most ISPs 
masquerade their clients behind a large private network and, in such 
cases, access to private services is not possible.

My provider, both for adsl and for mobile, has different policies and 
supplies a 10.x.x.x IP for mobile and a public IP (in the range 
151.x.x.x) for adsl.  In the latter case my web server is a public 
server and is accessible to anybody in the world but how long this 
situation will last I can't control.

For most users this is a useful service because they are protected by 
attacks but I'm afraid of the possibility I'll loose access from 
external world.  I'm waiting for ISP to implement ipv6 to overcome the 
shortage of IP addresses.

Ciao
Giovanni
-- 
   A computer is like an air conditioner,
   it stops working when you open Windows.
   < http://giovanni.homelinux.net/ >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4650

Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
>For years I've used port-forwarding in my router to allow
>external access to ftp, ssh, and http servers. Recently,
>this no longer works. The servers are running normally and
>can be accessed internally. I can even access them via the
>router IP address, showing that port-forwarding is still
>working. I've also tried port-fowarding and DMZ in the
>modem, to no avail. So my conjecture is that the ISP has
>decided to block packets it considers unworthy before they
>reach the modem.
>
>Is this at all likely? How can I test/confirm the
>conjecture? If it is confirmed, what can I do? Needless to
>say, ISP "technical support" has so far been useless.

Most likely they have moved your setup to something that is called
"Carrier Grade NAT" which makes it impossible to reach your home setup
from the Internet if none of your internal systems has actively
initiated the connection. This saves precious IPv4 addresses but makes
it impossible to run servers at your home.

The same way you have established the port-forwarding in your router,
they would have to establish port-forwarding from their Carrier Grade
NAT device to your router. Nearly no ISP actually offers this service.

This is what we got (and deserved!) by ignoring the IPv4-Internet
getting full and missing the IPv6 in the last two decades. And now
we're complaining about that.

Maybe if you yell loud enough they might move you back to an
exclusively assigned IPv4 address (some ISPs in Germany actually do
that on request), but you might be out of luck here.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4651

On 2020-07-19, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
> Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
>>For years I've used port-forwarding in my router to allow
>>external access to ftp, ssh, and http servers. Recently,
>>this no longer works. The servers are running normally and
>>can be accessed internally. I can even access them via the
>>router IP address, showing that port-forwarding is still
>>working. I've also tried port-fowarding and DMZ in the
>>modem, to no avail. So my conjecture is that the ISP has
>>decided to block packets it considers unworthy before they
>>reach the modem.
>>
>>Is this at all likely? How can I test/confirm the
>>conjecture? If it is confirmed, what can I do? Needless to
>>say, ISP "technical support" has so far been useless.
>
> Most likely they have moved your setup to something that is called
> "Carrier Grade NAT" which makes it impossible to reach your home setup
> from the Internet if none of your internal systems has actively
> initiated the connection. This saves precious IPv4 addresses but makes
> it impossible to run servers at your home.
>
> The same way you have established the port-forwarding in your router,
> they would have to establish port-forwarding from their Carrier Grade
> NAT device to your router. Nearly no ISP actually offers this service.
>
> This is what we got (and deserved!) by ignoring the IPv4-Internet
> getting full and missing the IPv6 in the last two decades. And now
> we're complaining about that.
>
> Maybe if you yell loud enough they might move you back to an
> exclusively assigned IPv4 address (some ISPs in Germany actually do
> that on request), but you might be out of luck here.

IF that is the case, then you could establish an ssh tunnels to a
computer which was outside ISP domain. Unfortunately, AFAIK the tunnel
is port specific. Ie, only one port per tunnel. So if you want to tunnel
ssh, ftp, http you would have to have three tunnels AFAIK. 
You could use autossh to do so (which would reestablish the tunnel if
for some reason the ssh link died).

Anyone wanting to get at your location would then have to connect to the
appropriate port on the remote machine which would send the information
over the ssh link to your machine. 

If you have no machine outside the ISP domain with its own valid
address, then you would be out of luck. 
By looking at the address assigned to your router by the ISP you can
tell if they are NATing you. If it is an address in the ranges
10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255, then that is
what they are doing to you. If it is a valid public address, then not. 

If you can log onto your router, then you can usually find out what its
outside address is. (In this case the trick of going to one of the sites
that tells you where your connection came from would not work since all
it would know is that it came from the ISP, not which of the
computers/routers it came from)

>
> Greetings
> Marc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4652

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 17:35:40 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:

 > By looking at the address assigned to your router by the ISP you can
 > tell if they are NATing you. If it is an address in the ranges
 > 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.172.16.0.0 ??? 172.31.255.255, then that is
 > what they are doing to you. If it is a valid public address, then not. 
 >
 > If you can log onto your router, then you can usually find out what its
 > outside address is. (In this case the trick of going to one of the sites
 > that tells you where your connection came from would not work since all
 > it would know is that it came from the ISP, not which of the
 > computers/routers it came from)

According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is
that the "outside address"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4653

On 2020-07-20, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 17:35:40 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
>
> > By looking at the address assigned to your router by the ISP you can
> > tell if they are NATing you. If it is an address in the ranges
> > 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.172.16.0.0 ??? 172.31.255.255, then that is
> > what they are doing to you. If it is a valid public address, then not. 
> >
> > If you can log onto your router, then you can usually find out what its
> > outside address is. (In this case the trick of going to one of the sites
> > that tells you where your connection came from would not work since all
> > it would know is that it came from the ISP, not which of the
> > computers/routers it came from)
>
> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is
> that the "outside address"?

Yes. At that point it is hard to say what would be doing the port
filtering. It would almost have to be in the modem, since it is hard
(not impossible) to see where the filtering would take place.
Do you have access to an outside machine (ie away from your ISP)?
What do you get if you do
telnet 142.116.123.234 22
(where that address should be your router address)?
Or  If you are port forwarding to port 22 on your inside machine, try
telnet 142.116.123.234 2276
(where 2276 is the port you are forwarding from)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4654

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 22:33:54 -0400, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is
> that the "outside address"?

That's a public (aka outside) address. Depending on what the xxx.xxx really are
it's either a direct allocation to Bell Canada, or an allocation Bell has made
to Virgin Home Ontario.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org to davidwhodgins@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4655

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 22:33:54 -0400, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:

> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is
> that the "outside address"?

Your ip address is owned by virginmobile.ca

Running an intense stealth nmap scan of your ip address shows ...
Not shown: 998 filtered ports
PORT      STATE  SERVICE  VERSION
22/tcp    closed ssh
50001/tcp open   ssl/http lighttpd

The 998 filtered ports did not respond to the syn packets. The ssh port did respond
to the syn packet, but not a tcp packet. The http port responded to both.

No response in a browser (tried lynx) to http://your.ip.address, so the web
server is either not running, or not set up to respond to a direct by ip address
connection.

I think the router is not set up to forward the packets to the computer being
used, for the ssh service.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org to davidwhodgins@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4656

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:46:56 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:
 > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 22:33:54 -0400, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
 >
 >> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
 >> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is
 >> that the "outside address"?
 >
 > Your ip address is owned by virginmobile.ca
 >
 > Running an intense stealth nmap scan of your ip address shows ...
 > Not shown: 998 filtered ports
 > PORT      STATE  SERVICE  VERSION
 > 22/tcp    closed ssh
 > 50001/tcp open   ssl/http lighttpd
 >

 > The 998 filtered ports did not respond to the syn
 > packets. The ssh port did respond to the syn packet, but
 > not a tcp packet. The http port responded to both.
 >
 > No response in a browser (tried lynx) to
 > http://your.ip.address, so the web server is either not
 > running, or not set up to respond to a direct by ip
 > address connection.
 >
 > I think the router is not set up to forward the packets
 > to the computer being used, for the ssh service.

Well I had deleted the virtual-server configuration. I've
restored it now. 

sshd, vsftpd and thttpd are all running and accessible
locally.

No idea about lighttpd.  Maybe it's running in the router?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4666

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:01:41 -0400, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote:
> No idea about lighttpd.  Maybe it's running in the router?

That may have been a guess by nmap when the port is open, but no info is
being returned to indicate which http server is being used.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org to davidwhodgins@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4681

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 7/19/20 11:01 PM, Bob Tennent wrote:

> locally.
> 
> No idea about lighttpd.  Maybe it's running in the router?
> 
> 

Almost certainly.  lighthttpd is exactly what I'd expect to find in a
device with limited RAM and CPU to serve up the configuration pages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4657

On 07/20/2020 04:33 AM, Bob Tennent wrote:

> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is that the
> "outside address"?

Yes   It is your outside address but that does not mean that it is the 
ip address assigned to your router.  You should try to read the address 
directly from your router.  If you are behind a big nat network, your 
router has a different address from 142.116.xxx.xxx

Ciao
Giovanni
-- 
   A computer is like an air conditioner,
   it stops working when you open Windows.
   < http://giovanni.homelinux.net/ >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4658

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:10:34 +0200, Giovanni wrote:
 > On 07/20/2020 04:33 AM, Bob Tennent wrote:
 >
 >> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
 >> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is that the
 >> "outside address"?
 >
 > Yes   It is your outside address but that does not mean that it is the 
 > ip address assigned to your router.  You should try to read the address 
 > directly from your router.  If you are behind a big nat network, your 
 > router has a different address from 142.116.xxx.xxx

I have both a modem and a router.  The modem says its IP address is
142.116... and the router's address is internal: 192.168.0.11.
So it seems I'm not "behind a big nat network" yet ftp,ssh,http are
being blocked somewhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4659

On 20.7.20 14.31, Bob Tennent wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:10:34 +0200, Giovanni wrote:
>   > On 07/20/2020 04:33 AM, Bob Tennent wrote:
>   >
>   >> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
>   >> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is that the
>   >> "outside address"?
>   >
>   > Yes   It is your outside address but that does not mean that it is the
>   > ip address assigned to your router.  You should try to read the address
>   > directly from your router.  If you are behind a big nat network, your
>   > router has a different address from 142.116.xxx.xxx
> 
> I have both a modem and a router.  The modem says its IP address is
> 142.116... and the router's address is internal: 192.168.0.11.
> So it seems I'm not "behind a big nat network" yet ftp,ssh,http are
> being blocked somewhere.


Are you mixing up a router and a switch? If the 'router' has all the
ports in the same internal network, it must be a switch.

If the router is connected to two (or more) different subnets, you
do need to have a path from the modem to the hosts having the servers.

Also, you need to have the port forwarding for all the services in
the modem, which obviously does a NAT.

-- 

-TV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4660

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:49:56 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote:
 > On 20.7.20 14.31, Bob Tennent wrote:
 >> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:10:34 +0200, Giovanni wrote:
 >>   > On 07/20/2020 04:33 AM, Bob Tennent wrote:
 >>   >
 >>   >> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
 >>   >> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is that the
 >>   >> "outside address"?
 >>   >
 >>   > Yes It is your outside address but that does not
 >>   > mean that it is the ip address assigned to your
 >>   > router. You should try to read the address directly
 >>   > from your router. If you are behind a big nat
 >>   > network, your router has a different address from
 >>   > 142.116.xxx.xxx
 >> 
 >> I have both a modem and a router.  The modem says its IP address is
 >> 142.116... and the router's address is internal: 192.168.0.11.
 >> So it seems I'm not "behind a big nat network" yet ftp,ssh,http are
 >> being blocked somewhere.

 > Are you mixing up a router and a switch? If the 'router'
 > has all the ports in the same internal network, it must
 > be a switch.

I just connect what I call the router to the modem and all
the internal devices connect to the "router", whether wired
or wireless. In the past I configured virtual servers on
the "router" and it worked. I don't believe I configured
port forwarding on the modem as well but I may have just
forgotten about it.

 > Also, you need to have the port forwarding for all the
 > services in the modem, which obviously does a NAT.

Well I can try that but the modem has a 192.168.2.1
address and the "router" and all the internal devices have
192.168.0.x addresses. Do I forward the relevant ports to
the "router" or to the actual server system?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4661

On 20.7.20 18.32, Bob Tennent wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:49:56 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>   > On 20.7.20 14.31, Bob Tennent wrote:
>   >> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:10:34 +0200, Giovanni wrote:
>   >>   > On 07/20/2020 04:33 AM, Bob Tennent wrote:
>   >>   >
>   >>   >> According to whatismyip.org, my IP address is in the range
>   >>   >> 142.116.xxx.xxx and that agrees with what the modem says. Is that the
>   >>   >> "outside address"?
>   >>   >
>   >>   > Yes It is your outside address but that does not
>   >>   > mean that it is the ip address assigned to your
>   >>   > router. You should try to read the address directly
>   >>   > from your router. If you are behind a big nat
>   >>   > network, your router has a different address from
>   >>   > 142.116.xxx.xxx
>   >>
>   >> I have both a modem and a router.  The modem says its IP address is
>   >> 142.116... and the router's address is internal: 192.168.0.11.
>   >> So it seems I'm not "behind a big nat network" yet ftp,ssh,http are
>   >> being blocked somewhere.
> 
>   > Are you mixing up a router and a switch? If the 'router'
>   > has all the ports in the same internal network, it must
>   > be a switch.
> 
> I just connect what I call the router to the modem and all
> the internal devices connect to the "router", whether wired
> or wireless. In the past I configured virtual servers on
> the "router" and it worked. I don't believe I configured
> port forwarding on the modem as well but I may have just
> forgotten about it.
> 
>   > Also, you need to have the port forwarding for all the
>   > services in the modem, which obviously does a NAT.
> 
> Well I can try that but the modem has a 192.168.2.1
> address and the "router" and all the internal devices have
> 192.168.0.x addresses. Do I forward the relevant ports to
> the "router" or to the actual server system?


T keep thinga straight, the "router" is a real router between
two different subnets (192.168.0.x and 192.168.2.x), unless
you are having a wide netmask covering both (e.g. 255.255.0.0).

If you can tell the modem's port forwarding that the targets are
in a different subnet, it is all OK to send directly.

The setup seems too complicated to me, but you may have a good
reason for it.

-- 

-TV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web