ISP-DSL Digest for Monday, August 14, 2000. 1. Re: dialup needed 2. Re: dialup needed 3. Advice on ATM Switches 4. RE: Advice on ATM Switches 5. Re: Advice on ATM Switches 6. RE: Advice on ATM Switches 7. @home bans VPNs 8. RE: @home bans VPNs 9. RE: @home bans VPNs 10. RE: @home bans VPNs 11. Re: @home bans VPNs 12. Re: @home bans VPNs 13. RE: @home bans VPNs 14. Re: @home bans VPNs 15. RE: @home bans VPNs 16. Re: @home bans VPNs 17. Re: @home bans VPNs 18. RE: @home bans VPNs 19. Re: @home bans VPNs 20. RE: @home bans VPNs 21. RE: @home bans VPNs 22. RE: @home bans VPNs 23. RE: @home bans VPNs 24. Re: @home bans VPNs 25. RE: @home bans VPNs 26. Re: @home bans VPNs 27. Re: @home bans VPNs 28. Re: @home bans VPNs 29. Re: @home bans VPNs 30. RE: @home bans VPNs 31. RE: @home bans VPNs 32. Re: @home bans VPNs 33. Re: @home bans VPNs 34. Re: @home bans VPNs 35. Re: @home bans VPNs 36. RE: @home bans VPNs 37. RE: @home bans VPNs 38. Re: @home bans VPNs 39. SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) 40. Re: SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) 41. Re: SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: dialup needed From: Chuck Lipinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:51:28 -0400 X-Message-Number: 1 Marc What area are you looking for the services in? Marc Stephens wrote: > Sorry to post this to the dsl list, but I need someone that can fix me up > with a wholesale dialup service for approx. 20,000 subscribers. Can anyone > help? > > Thanks, > Marc > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: dialup needed From: "John FBNet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:16:49 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2 GTE has a service, so does AT&T (used to be IBM Global Net) You can brand it, etc. John Dunham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Lipinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:51 AM Subject: Re: dialup needed > Marc > > What area are you looking for the services in? > > Marc Stephens wrote: > > > Sorry to post this to the dsl list, but I need someone that can fix me up > > with a wholesale dialup service for approx. 20,000 subscribers. Can anyone > > help? > > > > Thanks, > > Marc > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > > > ^^^^ http://www.genuity.com/dmail/ispoffers/e33.htm ^^^^^ > At Genuity, formerly GTE Internetworking and BBN, we give > ISP's Tier 1 access through two innovative services > Click the above link to learn more and get free research. > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Advice on ATM Switches From: David Klebanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:53:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 3 Hi All! We are trying to logically split ONE ATM line coming from the phone company to two routers with ATM expansion cards in each one. Can anyone suggest a best CISCO ATM router for this task? We don't need a fancy functionality, just a simple Layer 2 switching, meaning "VC A comes to the switch and gets out as VC B", that's it! Thanks. ===== Klebanov David Xpert Trusted Systems, IP Group IP Integrator Phone : +(972) 9 9522361 Mobile: +(972) 58 368234 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Advice on ATM Switches From: "Darrell Hale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:41:34 -0700 X-Message-Number: 4 I would use the ASC 1 Rack Unit model ATM switch. For about 10k, you can get a 4 DS3 ATM switch. They make other models also that have 1 DS3 or 1 OC3 and a variety of T1s. See their stuff at http://www.asc1.com. UUNET uses their gear in great quantity. -----Original Message----- From: David Klebanov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Advice on ATM Switches Hi All! We are trying to logically split ONE ATM line coming from the phone company to two routers with ATM expansion cards in each one. Can anyone suggest a best CISCO ATM router for this task? We don't need a fancy functionality, just a simple Layer 2 switching, meaning "VC A comes to the switch and gets out as VC B", that's it! Thanks. ===== Klebanov David Xpert Trusted Systems, IP Group IP Integrator Phone : +(972) 9 9522361 Mobile: +(972) 58 368234 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ RADWARE, Inc.: The only company offering a complete local/ global IP load balancing solution for all Internet/intranet/ extranet environments. http://www.radware.com ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Advice on ATM Switches From: Joe Wenker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:40:54 -0500 X-Message-Number: 5 The "best" always depends but here are some options. A stand-alone LS1010 would do the trick. The LS1010 ASP and line cards can also be placed in the bottom slots on a Catalyst 5500; saves chassis/power supplies. The cisco 6400 is an option but its probably a bit spendy for just the ATM switching you want. Joe Wenker CCIE 1040 Qwest Communications David Klebanov wrote: > > Hi All! > > We are trying to logically split ONE ATM line coming > from the phone company to two routers with ATM > expansion cards in each one. > > Can anyone suggest a best CISCO ATM router for this > task? We don't need a fancy functionality, just a > simple Layer 2 switching, meaning "VC A comes to the > switch and gets out as VC B", that's it! > > Thanks. > > ===== > Klebanov David > Xpert Trusted Systems, IP Group > IP Integrator > Phone : +(972) 9 9522361 > Mobile: +(972) 58 368234 > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > RADWARE, Inc.: The only company offering a complete local/ > global IP load balancing solution for all Internet/intranet/ > extranet environments. http://www.radware.com > > ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Advice on ATM Switches From: "Darrell Hale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:30:27 -0700 X-Message-Number: 6 You also can buy from www.solunet.com. They are a distributor. -----Original Message----- From: Darrell Hale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Advice on ATM Switches I would use the ASC 1 Rack Unit model ATM switch. For about 10k, you can get a 4 DS3 ATM switch. They make other models also that have 1 DS3 or 1 OC3 and a variety of T1s. See their stuff at http://www.asc1.com. UUNET uses their gear in great quantity. -----Original Message----- From: David Klebanov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Advice on ATM Switches Hi All! We are trying to logically split ONE ATM line coming from the phone company to two routers with ATM expansion cards in each one. Can anyone suggest a best CISCO ATM router for this task? We don't need a fancy functionality, just a simple Layer 2 switching, meaning "VC A comes to the switch and gets out as VC B", that's it! Thanks. ===== Klebanov David Xpert Trusted Systems, IP Group IP Integrator Phone : +(972) 9 9522361 Mobile: +(972) 58 368234 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ RADWARE, Inc.: The only company offering a complete local/ global IP load balancing solution for all Internet/intranet/ extranet environments. http://www.radware.com ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:23:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 7 @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Lowe, Zachary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:33:13 -0400 X-Message-Number: 8 Where does it specifically mention VPN? -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: @home bans VPNs @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? -Dan ______________ * The ISP-DSL Discussion List * ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "David Brenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:35:59 -0700 X-Message-Number: 9 : Where does it specifically mention VPN? I'd recommend a text search of the article. Worked for me. David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Lowe, Zachary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:40:01 -0400 X-Message-Number: 10 Yeah, that worked..thanks -----Original Message----- From: David Brenner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs : Where does it specifically mention VPN? I'd recommend a text search of the article. Worked for me. David ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On your mark. Get set. WIN! Compete in the PathStar Triathlon - win a Sony Wega 36" Flat Screen TV! http://track.sonata.com/remail?lucent_Ispdicussion ______________ * The ISP-DSL Discussion List * ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Peter Barbera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:46:49 -0700 X-Message-Number: 11 Is there a deeper reason for this ? Dan Hollis wrote: > > @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > > -Dan > > ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ -- Peter Barbera [EMAIL PROTECTED] 200 Pier Avenue Ste. 39 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 USA Phone: 310-376-8755 Fax: 310-376-8785 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "David Payer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:02:53 -0500 X-Message-Number: 12 Makes sense to me as an ISP. Consumers don't like it though, to be sure. Everyone wants a T1/DS3 for $40/mo. The current pricing is clearly based on the intermittant/occasional home use model. Constant business use (running a VPN to the home office, using the hard drive on the network there to run your apps at home) goes beyond casual consumer use. It is business use and should probably cost more. Popular? no.. but how many cable companies can you go through for net access? Also, @home is not regulated like phone companies are (great discussion point, by the way - they simply were not covered by the same laws) so they are not as responsive to open access like the phone companies. As a matter of fact, they are sitting on a contract they made with Excite as an internet provider using it as the reason they will not open up to other ISPs. They say they will do it when their 2 year contract is over. Aint life interesting. David P > @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > > -Dan > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Ian Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:53:09 -0600 X-Message-Number: 13 Dan; It's a perogative thing, most DSL contracts I have looked at identify that you must upgrade to their business (higher $$$) service for additional services - the base service is rated as a "browsing" service. I only do xDSL for business customers so my contract is not as restrictive, as it is targeted at customers who expect a higher grade of service. I have to say that the contract you provided the link for is very complete in what the service does and does not allow for...that's a good thing, for the customer, and also for you if you are a competitor (easier to differenciate yourself). I have been an @Home (first the local cable co. Shaw, then @Home) customer for 4 years and the only contract I ever signed was a 1/2 page that dealt with payments. -Ian -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: August 14, 2000 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: @home bans VPNs @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? -Dan ______________ The ISP-DSL Discussion List ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "Tony Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:13:58 -0700 X-Message-Number: 14 Makes sense to me as well, but without a monopoly position, I'm not sure it is practical. For example, our competitors don't charge extra for business or VPN. --Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Payer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > Makes sense to me as an ISP. Consumers don't like it though, to be sure. > Everyone wants a T1/DS3 for $40/mo. The current pricing is clearly based on > the intermittant/occasional home use model. Constant business use (running a > VPN to the home office, using the hard drive on the network there to run > your apps at home) goes beyond casual consumer use. It is business use and > should probably cost more. Popular? no.. but how many cable companies can > you go through for net access? Also, @home is not regulated like phone > companies are (great discussion point, by the way - they simply were not > covered by the same laws) so they are not as responsive to open access like > the phone companies. As a matter of fact, they are sitting on a contract > they made with Excite as an internet provider using it as the reason they > will not open up to other ISPs. They say they will do it when their 2 year > contract is over. > > Aint life interesting. > > David P > > > > > @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > > > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > > > Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 15 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Lowe, Zachary wrote: > Where does it specifically mention VPN? Section 6.b.viii, the red hilighted part at the bottom. A quick email to comcast came back with the following reply: "The Comcast Online residential service is not intended for those that attempt to host a VPN connection or for those persons attempting to establish a VPN connection with their workplace." Weird. I don't know any DSL providers prohibiting users from connecting to their workplace with VPN. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:43:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 16 That's what I would like to know. You would think @home would want to ban NAT, not VPNs. -Dan On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Peter Barbera wrote: > Is there a deeper reason for this ? > > Dan Hollis wrote: > > > > @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > > > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > > > Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > > > > -Dan > > > > ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:48:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 17 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, David Payer wrote: > Constant business use (running a VPN to the home office, using the hard > drive on the network there to run your apps at home) goes beyond casual > consumer use. Say what? Noone I know does this. They use VPN to securely access internal business data, not run executables off their file server. You don't need a VPN to access the hard drive on the business network anyway. So why specifically target VPNs? *boggle*. > As a matter of fact, they are sitting on a contract they made with > Excite as an internet provider using it as the reason they will not open > up to other ISPs. They say they will do it when their 2 year contract is > over. Yeah, right. It's going to take a supreme court ruling to force the cable co's to open their networks. And even then I would expect the cable co's give the supreme court the finger, they are certainly arrogant enough. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 18 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Carter wrote: > It's a perogative thing, most DSL contracts I have looked at identify that > you must upgrade to their business (higher $$$) service for additional > services - the base service is rated as a "browsing" service. No DSL service I have seen has anywhere as draconian a TOS as @home. They may have clauses banning servers, but as far as I know none ban VPN *clients*. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:50:42 -0700 X-Message-Number: 19 Many people use VPNs to check their work email on weekends. Sounds kind of draconian David Payer wrote: > Makes sense to me as an ISP. Consumers don't like it though, to be sure. > Everyone wants a T1/DS3 for $40/mo. The current pricing is clearly based on > the intermittant/occasional home use model. Constant business use (running a > VPN to the home office, using the hard drive on the network there to run > your apps at home) goes beyond casual consumer use. It is business use and > should probably cost more. Popular? no.. but how many cable companies can > you go through for net access? Also, @home is not regulated like phone > companies are (great discussion point, by the way - they simply were not > covered by the same laws) so they are not as responsive to open access like > the phone companies. As a matter of fact, they are sitting on a contract > they made with Excite as an internet provider using it as the reason they > will not open up to other ISPs. They say they will do it when their 2 year > contract is over. > > Aint life interesting. > > David P > > > @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > > > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > > > Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > > > > -Dan > > > > ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: Doug Semig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:10:44 -0400 X-Message-Number: 20 ISTM that by simply using the network, you're agreeing to their version of a shrinkwrap license, masquarading as "system policies" and whatnot. After reading that bunch of nonsense, if I were an @home subscriber, I'd rip the wires out myself and THEN call and cancel. That click-through/shrinkwrap license is completely unacceptable. At least it is unacceptable to me, who was raised to hold my freedom and privacy in high esteem. For socialists and communists, however, that license is probably normal and expected. Doug Ian Carter was heard at 11:53 AM 8/14/00 -0600 to say: >Dan; > >It's a perogative thing, most DSL contracts I have looked at identify that >you must upgrade to their business (higher $$$) service for additional >services - the base service is rated as a "browsing" service. I only do xDSL >for business customers so my contract is not as restrictive, as it is >targeted at customers who expect a higher grade of service. I have to say >that the contract you provided the link for is very complete in what the >service does and does not allow for...that's a good thing, for the customer, >and also for you if you are a competitor (easier to differenciate yourself). > >I have been an @Home (first the local cable co. Shaw, then @Home) customer >for 4 years and the only contract I ever signed was a 1/2 page that dealt >with payments. > >-Ian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: August 14, 2000 11:23 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: @home bans VPNs > > >@home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > >http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > >Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > >-Dan > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Ian Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:03:01 -0600 X-Message-Number: 21 Dan; Some xDSL providers may not specify spell out what services they do or do not support on their network (Some do, I had a few sample contracts from Pac Bell I was looking at that were quite restrictive), but actively block certain ports. I have had this problem with a couple of providers. I agree @home is more extreme in thier TOS as to what they will or will not support. I wonder if a VPN client works on the Comcast/@Home network though, I KNOW I can use MS PPTP on my @home connection, but I wouldn't get any tech support, if I needed it, from @Home. -Ian -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: August 14, 2000 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Carter wrote: > It's a perogative thing, most DSL contracts I have looked at identify that > you must upgrade to their business (higher $$$) service for additional > services - the base service is rated as a "browsing" service. No DSL service I have seen has anywhere as draconian a TOS as @home. They may have clauses banning servers, but as far as I know none ban VPN *clients*. -Dan ^^^^ http://www.genuity.com/dmail/ispoffers/e33.htm ^^^^^ At Genuity, formerly GTE Internetworking and BBN, we give ISP's Tier 1 access through two innovative services Click the above link to learn more and get free research. ______________ The ISP-DSL Discussion List ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Darrell Hale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:31:09 -0700 X-Message-Number: 22 Seems that my VPN works just fine. -----Original Message----- From: Lowe, Zachary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 10:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs Where does it specifically mention VPN? -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: @home bans VPNs @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? -Dan ______________ * The ISP-DSL Discussion List * ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ______________ • The ISP-DSL Discussion List • ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:34:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 23 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Carter wrote: > I wonder if a VPN client works on the Comcast/@Home network though, I KNOW I > can use MS PPTP on my @home connection, but I wouldn't get any tech support, > if I needed it, from @Home. >From my reading of the @home TOS, if they catch you using MS PPTP to securely access your work email, they will disconnect you. So basically under the @home TOS, you can connect to your office from home -- as long as you don't do it securely. Does this make sense to anyone else? I can't comprehend the logic behind it. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "Special One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:37:35 -0700 X-Message-Number: 24 I agree David. Everyone wants a high speed connection without incurring the costs to obtain one. And we all know too well real bandwidth costs real money. Glad to see this. Right on @home! :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: David Payer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > Makes sense to me as an ISP. Consumers don't like it though, to be sure. > Everyone wants a T1/DS3 for $40/mo. The current pricing is clearly based on > the intermittant/occasional home use model. Constant business use (running a > VPN to the home office, using the hard drive on the network there to run > your apps at home) goes beyond casual consumer use. It is business use and > should probably cost more. Popular? no.. but how many cable companies can > you go through for net access? Also, @home is not regulated like phone > companies are (great discussion point, by the way - they simply were not > covered by the same laws) so they are not as responsive to open access like > the phone companies. As a matter of fact, they are sitting on a contract > they made with Excite as an internet provider using it as the reason they > will not open up to other ISPs. They say they will do it when their 2 year > contract is over. > > Aint life interesting. > > David P > > > > > @home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > > > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > > > Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Ian Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:31:07 -0600 X-Message-Number: 25 Doug; Yesss..."For socialists and communists", or private networks (with an interface to the Internet), like MSN, AOL, or @Home...Or my "private" network (xDSL ISP) as it so happens, I just spell out the paramenters of what the service will or will not provide...much like the comcast/@home contract. I really don't see the problem, I would much rather have the service defined as to what the working parameters are, rather than an open-ended understanding. You can bet your last nickle my fiber contract (ISP) is quite compehensive, and the upsteam lives and dies by the letter of the contract. My @home contract is a little funny as I was a customer at a time when they really weren't ready to deliver the service in my area, I believe the only QOS guarentee they were willing to give me was that they would be responsible in taking my $40.00 per month. I have gotten used to undeclared network outages, being dropped from their routing table for no reason, frequent cable modem replacement, connection speeds dropping to >15Kbps, etc. Quite entertaining for only $40.00 per month, makes for great stories for my xDSL customers. -Ian -----Original Message----- From: Doug Semig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: August 14, 2000 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs ISTM that by simply using the network, you're agreeing to their version of a shrinkwrap license, masquarading as "system policies" and whatnot. After reading that bunch of nonsense, if I were an @home subscriber, I'd rip the wires out myself and THEN call and cancel. That click-through/shrinkwrap license is completely unacceptable. At least it is unacceptable to me, who was raised to hold my freedom and privacy in high esteem. For socialists and communists, however, that license is probably normal and expected. Doug Ian Carter was heard at 11:53 AM 8/14/00 -0600 to say: >Dan; > >It's a perogative thing, most DSL contracts I have looked at identify that >you must upgrade to their business (higher $$$) service for additional >services - the base service is rated as a "browsing" service. I only do xDSL >for business customers so my contract is not as restrictive, as it is >targeted at customers who expect a higher grade of service. I have to say >that the contract you provided the link for is very complete in what the >service does and does not allow for...that's a good thing, for the customer, >and also for you if you are a competitor (easier to differenciate yourself). > >I have been an @Home (first the local cable co. Shaw, then @Home) customer >for 4 years and the only contract I ever signed was a 1/2 page that dealt >with payments. > >-Ian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: August 14, 2000 11:23 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: @home bans VPNs > > >@home gives its customer's thumbscrews another turn... > >http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > >Wonder if DSL providers ban VPNs too? > >-Dan > ______________ The ISP-DSL Discussion List ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "David Payer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:56:24 -0500 X-Message-Number: 26 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Special One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I agree David. Everyone wants a high speed connection without incurring the > costs to obtain one. And we all know too well real bandwidth costs real > money. Glad to see this. Right on @home! :-) > Hmm, I dont know if I would get excited about it :) but I understand the logic. Also, everyone is talking about @ home but the web page with the TOS agreement was another company comcast http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp Are they one and the same or is that some local company that is enroute to being swallowed by "BIG CABLE"? David Payer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:05:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 27 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, David Payer wrote: > From: "Special One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I agree David. Everyone wants a high speed connection without incurring the > > costs to obtain one. And we all know too well real bandwidth costs real > > money. Glad to see this. Right on @home! :-) > Hmm, I dont know if I would get excited about it :) but I understand the > logic. I dont. It has nothing to do with bandwidth. Basically @home is forbidding you from running secure connections to your place of employment. As long as it's not secure, @home will let you run it. You understand the "logic" of this? Weird. I can't. > Also, everyone is talking about @ home but the web page with the TOS > agreement was another company comcast > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > Are they one and the same or is that some local company that is enroute to > being swallowed by "BIG CABLE"? They are one and the same. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:09:35 -0400 X-Message-Number: 28 People running VPN's are more likely to be doing large scale file sharing stuff like running applications from the remote machine, the sort of thing you might be normally doing over a LAN. Of course it's a bandwidth issue. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:05 PM Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, David Payer wrote: > > From: "Special One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I agree David. Everyone wants a high speed connection without incurring the > > > costs to obtain one. And we all know too well real bandwidth costs real > > > money. Glad to see this. Right on @home! :-) > > Hmm, I dont know if I would get excited about it :) but I understand the > > logic. > > I dont. It has nothing to do with bandwidth. > > Basically @home is forbidding you from running secure connections to your > place of employment. > > As long as it's not secure, @home will let you run it. > > You understand the "logic" of this? Weird. I can't. > > > Also, everyone is talking about @ home but the web page with the TOS > > agreement was another company comcast > > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > > Are they one and the same or is that some local company that is enroute to > > being swallowed by "BIG CABLE"? > > They are one and the same. > > -Dan > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > RADWARE, Inc.: The only company offering a complete local/ > global IP load balancing solution for all Internet/intranet/ > extranet environments. http://www.radware.com > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:24:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 29 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > People running VPN's are more likely to be doing large scale file sharing > stuff like running applications from the remote machine, the sort of thing > you might be normally doing over a LAN. Of course it's a bandwidth issue. They why dont they *make* it a bandwidth issue? Instead, their TOS attacks specific applications, in essence saying "doing large scale file sharing is perfectly OK, as long as you dont do it securely". Bizarre. I guess you could run an SSH bridge (not VPN though!) to encrypt SMB on the fly, and get the same effect - large scale file sharing with secure encryption but no VPN, and stay within the letter of the @home TOS. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Ian Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:14:49 -0600 X-Message-Number: 30 Dan; "You understand the "logic" of this? Weird. I can't." I read what the contract had to SAY, but I don't understand what it MEANS. Makes sense to me that they are just out lining what they consider to be supportable in the network, i.e. if you do this (say VPN), and you can't get it to work, don't call us. I would really doubt that would terminate someones services for using VPN, I can't see it being that disruptive from a networking standpoint. The terminate clause seems to be a "catch all". I think they just stuck in that clause for support reasons. I have only heard of a couple of instances of people being terminated from @home in my area (beyond late payments, UCE & hacking) and this was for exceeding the maximum daily upload limit (they have an issue with upstream data transfer, but not downstream) when Napster first came out. And they did block the Napster default ports for a few days. -Ian -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: August 14, 2000 2:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, David Payer wrote: > From: "Special One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I agree David. Everyone wants a high speed connection without incurring the > > costs to obtain one. And we all know too well real bandwidth costs real > > money. Glad to see this. Right on @home! :-) > Hmm, I dont know if I would get excited about it :) but I understand the > logic. I dont. It has nothing to do with bandwidth. Basically @home is forbidding you from running secure connections to your place of employment. As long as it's not secure, @home will let you run it. You understand the "logic" of this? Weird. I can't. > Also, everyone is talking about @ home but the web page with the TOS > agreement was another company comcast > http://www.comcastonline.com/subscriber-v3-red.asp > Are they one and the same or is that some local company that is enroute to > being swallowed by "BIG CABLE"? They are one and the same. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 31 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Carter wrote: > I read what the contract had to SAY, but I don't understand what it MEANS. The comcast support staff clarified it perfectly in an email response: "The Comcast Online residential service is not intended for those that attempt to host a VPN connection or for those persons attempting to establish a VPN connection with their workplace." While DSL providers might ban servers, I've never seen any ban *clients*. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:27:28 -0400 X-Message-Number: 32 Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? Without VPN, people will probably be using things like FTP to move the actual files they want to work on and not doing things like loading the applications themselves across it. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:24 PM Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > > People running VPN's are more likely to be doing large scale file sharing > > stuff like running applications from the remote machine, the sort of thing > > you might be normally doing over a LAN. Of course it's a bandwidth issue. > > They why dont they *make* it a bandwidth issue? > > Instead, their TOS attacks specific applications, in essence saying "doing > large scale file sharing is perfectly OK, as long as you dont do it > securely". > > Bizarre. > > I guess you could run an SSH bridge (not VPN though!) to encrypt SMB on > the fly, and get the same effect - large scale file sharing with secure > encryption but no VPN, and stay within the letter of the @home TOS. > > -Dan > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > SAVE 65% ON NETOPIA DSL ROUTERS WITH V.90 or ISDN BACKUP! > Give small business customers the redundancy they require. > http://www.netopia.com/equipment/offers/grow/index.html > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:33:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 33 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? I just explained it to you. SMB over SSH or other encrypted bridge (but not VPN) so you stay within the letter of the @home TOS, yet you are still able to run large scale file sharing with secure encryption to the workplace. Since they are specifically banning VPN, that lets you basically do the same thing, yet get around @home's draconian TOS. Instead of being virtual private network, it's nonvirtual public network, but it's encrypted. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: Ronald Kushner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:41:43 -0400 X-Message-Number: 34 Ian Carter wrote: > > Dan; > > "You understand the "logic" of this? Weird. I can't." > > I read what the contract had to SAY, but I don't understand what it MEANS. > Makes sense to me that they are just out lining what they consider to be > supportable in the network, i.e. if you do this (say VPN), and you can't get > it to work, don't call us. I would really doubt that would terminate > someones services for using VPN, I can't see it being that disruptive from a > networking standpoint. The terminate clause seems to be a "catch all". I > think they just stuck in that clause for support reasons. Nah, they put these things in there so they can shut off any bandwidth pig at any time. The TOS I looked at for Crumbcast@Bone seems to be written in a way that they can give any customer the ax at any time, and point out a TOS violation. I am sure that Napster is not allowed under the TOS either in the way it is written. Show me one cable modem customer who hasn't used Napster, it's probably the driving force behind sales. Another little known fact about Comcast's service is that you're upstream isn't as limited as you would think. I've been able to pull 80KBps off one box by opening additional FTP sessions, each session was limited to 128Kbps. Wierd huh? -Ron GLISnet, Inc. +1 810/939.9885 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:40:52 -0400 X-Message-Number: 35 And probably most of their customer base wouldn't have the slightest clue on how to do that. I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable networking guy and I wouldn't. I don't suspect they're particuallarly worried about the few techies that are capable of cobbling something together to get around it. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:33 PM Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > > Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? > > I just explained it to you. SMB over SSH or other encrypted bridge (but > not VPN) so you stay within the letter of the @home TOS, yet you are still > able to run large scale file sharing with secure encryption to the > workplace. > > Since they are specifically banning VPN, that lets you basically do the > same thing, yet get around @home's draconian TOS. Instead of being virtual > private network, it's nonvirtual public network, but it's encrypted. > > -Dan > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: "Ian Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:47:13 -0600 X-Message-Number: 36 Dan; "Not intended" may = don't bother us with this issue. As you pointed out in your previous E-mail you could use SSH to get around the VPN issue, if that strictly was the issue. Like I mentioned I bet if you do use a VPN they won't care. Bandwidth issues are a more real concern, in my area I don't believe they aren't setup to bill for usage, so they just terminate anyone who exceeds the limits @Home sets. Many xDSL providers like myself don't really care about clients running a VPN client (or a server for that matter), if the network is designed for it, I just bill the client for usage beyond their specified daily/monthly data cap. Some xDSL network providers don't want the billing hassle or design thier network to be tiered ($$) for services (a "browse" service and a "business" service), so they will be forced to upgrade services. I don't really want to hear about my clients VPN issues either, unless they are going to pay me for network support, because it is beyond the support I provide as an ISP (VPN will work on the xDSL network, but the client has to know how to make it work). -Ian -----Original Message----- From: Dan Hollis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: August 14, 2000 2:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Carter wrote: > I read what the contract had to SAY, but I don't understand what it MEANS. The comcast support staff clarified it perfectly in an email response: "The Comcast Online residential service is not intended for those that attempt to host a VPN connection or for those persons attempting to establish a VPN connection with their workplace." While DSL providers might ban servers, I've never seen any ban *clients*. -Dan ______________ The ISP-DSL Discussion List ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs From: Tim Dubose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:55:00 -0700 X-Message-Number: 37 Attention: Chief Technology Officer / Operations Manager / Purchasing Manager =20 CPAC Computers Solutions & Technology Group =20 Let us help your DOT COM Company become a leader. We provide your company a detailed architectural end-to-end solution for your business. Our program will ensure that even the youngest companies have access to = enterprise scale computing solutions, multi-vendor platform data = storage & data networking equipment while improving your bottom line from the very beginning.=20 =20 BENEFITS =20 =B7 Complete End to End Solutions =B7 Short Time-to-Market =B7 Aggressively Discounted Systems =B7 Consulting & Design Services =B7 Installation and Integration=20 =B7 Lease & Finance Options =B7 Low Cost maintenance Services =B7 Co-location Services =20 Our core competency is building .com infrastructure. We are partners with Best-of-Breed companies, such as Sun Microsystems, Cisco, Oracle, Netscape Alliance-(iPlanet) and Exodus. We've come to focus on the concepts that we believe will be common to all successful .com endeavors. Let us help your company realize the Return-On-Investment = you deserve by providing a complete solution with industry proven technologies and services.=20 =20 Call Your DOT COM Specialists TODAY!! CPAC Computers, Inc. Info email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800-778-2722Ask for Tim Ph: 714-692-5044 x286 Fax: 714-692-6680 22901 La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda, CA 92887 www.cpacinc.com -----Original Message----- From: Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs And probably most of their customer base wouldn't have the slightest clue on how to do that. I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable networking guy and I wouldn't. I don't suspect they're particuallarly worried about = the few techies that are capable of cobbling something together to get around it. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:33 PM Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > > Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? > > I just explained it to you. SMB over SSH or other encrypted bridge (but > not VPN) so you stay within the letter of the @home TOS, yet you are still > able to run large scale file sharing with secure encryption to the > workplace. > > Since they are specifically banning VPN, that lets you basically do the > same thing, yet get around @home's draconian TOS. Instead of being virtual > private network, it's nonvirtual public network, but it's encrypted. > > -Dan > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ^^^^ http://www.genuity.com/dmail/ispoffers/e33.htm ^^^^^ At Genuity, formerly GTE Internetworking and BBN, we give ISP's Tier 1 access through two innovative services=20 Click the above link to learn more and get free research. ______________ * The ISP-DSL Discussion List * ______________ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs From: "Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:56:21 -0400 X-Message-Number: 38 Go away spam boy. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Dubose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:55 PM Subject: RE: @home bans VPNs > Attention: Chief Technology Officer / Operations Manager / Purchasing > Manager > > CPAC Computers > Solutions & Technology Group > > Let us help your DOT COM Company become a leader. We provide your > company a detailed architectural end-to-end solution for your business. > Our program will ensure that even the youngest companies have access to > enterprise scale computing solutions, multi-vendor platform data storage > & data networking equipment while improving your bottom line from the > very beginning. > > BENEFITS > > · Complete End to End Solutions > · Short Time-to-Market > · Aggressively Discounted Systems > · Consulting & Design Services > · Installation and Integration > · Lease & Finance Options > · Low Cost maintenance Services > · Co-location Services > > Our core competency is building .com infrastructure. We are partners > with Best-of-Breed companies, such as Sun Microsystems, Cisco, Oracle, > Netscape Alliance-(iPlanet) and Exodus. We've come to focus on the > concepts that we believe will be common to all successful .com > endeavors. Let us help your company realize the Return-On-Investment you > deserve by providing a complete solution with industry proven > technologies and services. > > Call Your DOT COM Specialists TODAY!! > CPAC Computers, Inc. > Info email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 800-778-2722Ask for Tim > Ph: 714-692-5044 x286 Fax: 714-692-6680 > 22901 La Palma Avenue Yorba Linda, CA 92887 > www.cpacinc.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:41 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > > > And probably most of their customer base wouldn't have the slightest > clue > on how to do that. I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable networking > guy > and I wouldn't. I don't suspect they're particuallarly worried about the > few > techies > that are capable of cobbling something together to get around it. > > Vern > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:33 PM > Subject: Re: @home bans VPNs > > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > > > Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? > > > > I just explained it to you. SMB over SSH or other encrypted bridge > (but > > not VPN) so you stay within the letter of the @home TOS, yet you are > still > > able to run large scale file sharing with secure encryption to the > > workplace. > > > > Since they are specifically banning VPN, that lets you basically do > the > > same thing, yet get around @home's draconian TOS. Instead of being > virtual > > private network, it's nonvirtual public network, but it's encrypted. > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > > > > > ^^^^ http://www.genuity.com/dmail/ispoffers/e33.htm ^^^^^ > At Genuity, formerly GTE Internetworking and BBN, we give > ISP's Tier 1 access through two innovative services > Click the above link to learn more and get free research. > > ______________ * The ISP-DSL Discussion List * ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) From: Andrew White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:03:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Message-Number: 39 Dan, While this may come to a discussion of semantics, I would argue that an SSH tunnel _is_ a VPN connection. That's what a VPN is -- a virtual, encrypted, and authenticated connection between two points with an arbitrary number of network hops between them. Some of the VPN software that we use at my workplace works very much like an SSH tunnel -- Checkpoint SecuRemote, for instance, creates an authenticated and encrypted tunnel between the employer firewall and the employee's remote access session. In other words, an SSH tunnel would indeed violate @home's new terms of service. For what it's worth, I work at an ISP that sells DSL access via Bell (Verizon), Northpoint (also Verison now), Covad, and Conectiv, and we make no restrictions on client software for our end users. -Andrew On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > > Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? >=20 > I just explained it to you. SMB over SSH or other encrypted bridge (but > not VPN) so you stay within the letter of the @home TOS, yet you are stil= l > able to run large scale file sharing with secure encryption to the > workplace. >=20 > Since they are specifically banning VPN, that lets you basically do the > same thing, yet get around @home's draconian TOS. Instead of being virtua= l > private network, it's nonvirtual public network, but it's encrypted. >=20 > -Dan >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ______________ =95 The ISP-DSL Discussion List =95 ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ >=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) From: "Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:03:12 -0400 X-Message-Number: 40 The VPN term normally applies to PPTP. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 5:03 PM Subject: SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) > Dan, > > While this may come to a discussion of semantics, I would > argue that an SSH tunnel _is_ a VPN connection. That's > what a VPN is -- a virtual, encrypted, and authenticated > connection between two points with an arbitrary number > of network hops between them. > > Some of the VPN software that we use at my workplace > works very much like an SSH tunnel -- Checkpoint > SecuRemote, for instance, creates an authenticated > and encrypted tunnel between the employer firewall and > the employee's remote access session. > > In other words, an SSH tunnel would indeed violate > @home's new terms of service. For what it's worth, > I work at an ISP that sells DSL access via Bell (Verizon), > Northpoint (also Verison now), Covad, and Conectiv, and > we make no restrictions on client software for our end > users. > > -Andrew > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Dan Hollis wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Burke wrote: > > > Um, just how WOULD you do large scale file sharing without VPN? > > > > I just explained it to you. SMB over SSH or other encrypted bridge (but > > not VPN) so you stay within the letter of the @home TOS, yet you are still > > able to run large scale file sharing with secure encryption to the > > workplace. > > > > Since they are specifically banning VPN, that lets you basically do the > > same thing, yet get around @home's draconian TOS. Instead of being virtual > > private network, it's nonvirtual public network, but it's encrypted. > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > > > > > > > ______________ . The ISP-DSL Discussion List . ______________ > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-dsl/archives/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: SSL is VPN (was Re: @home bans VPNs) From: Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 41 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Andrew White wrote: > While this may come to a discussion of semantics, I would > argue that an SSH tunnel _is_ a VPN connection. That's > what a VPN is -- a virtual, encrypted, and authenticated > connection between two points with an arbitrary number > of network hops between them. I said bridge, not tunnel. Thus it's not virtual. :-) > In other words, an SSH tunnel would indeed violate > @home's new terms of service. That's why I said bridge :-) Transparently intercepts connection, but does not virtualize (translate) the IPs. Merely provides encryption for a protocol that does not normally encrypt. > For what it's worth, I work at an ISP that sells DSL access via Bell > (Verizon), Northpoint (also Verison now), Covad, and Conectiv, and > we make no restrictions on client software for our end users. Why do you think that is? -Dan --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to isp-dsl as: archive@jab.org
