Virtually all end-users in the UK use routers on the end of their ADSL lines, and the standard IP range seems to be 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x ________________________________
From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2010 15:00 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Internet issues (RANT) Not necessarily. Most PCs come with the NIC set for DHCP, and most end-users don't bother with routers (which is one reason, IMHO, that a lot of Window boxes get hacked and turned into spam servers) so if the modem is handing out a 192.168.x.y address, who cares? Only geeks like us. J From: Richard Stovall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:51 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Internet issues (RANT) No doubt. Wouldn't most anyone with a private range somwhere inside 192.168.0.0/16 have a trouble with this new setup? On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM, N Parr <[email protected]> wrote: Or they just don't want to buy more. Wouldn't that cause more issues is the long run. You're effectively double NATing everyone. ________________________________ From: Richard Stovall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Internet issues (RANT) Wow. Really? They are now doing address translation for you? That's a new one. Maybe we really are running out of IPv4 addresses... On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Aldrich < [email protected]> wrote: Well, my ISP used to give me a "live" IP and now I get a non-routeable IP in the 192.168.x.y range. L From: Richard Stovall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:25 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Internet issues (RANT) I must be missing something. Why do you need PPPoE on the modem to SSH into your Linux box? Isn't PPPoE usually used to establish the WAN connection from home to the ISP? If you're just plain 'ol DHCP on the WAN interface now, can't you just forward port 22 to the Linux machine? On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:58 AM, John Aldrich < [email protected]> wrote: Not sure... I'll have to look and see. It's a WRT54GS2. I'll check when I get home or look on the web to see when I get a chance... From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:51 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Internet issues (RANT) Does your new router at home have the capability to act as a VPN server? Ben M. Schorr Chief Executive Officer ______________________________________________ Roland Schorr & Tower www.rolandschorr.com <http://www.rolandschorr.com/> [email protected] From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Internet issues (RANT) Make that Monday when I got to work... J Losing track of days! J From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:58 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT: Internet issues (RANT) Ok...some of y'all may recall I ordered an upgrade to my DSL last week. Well, Monday morning, everything was working fine, but yesterday after I got to work, I was unable to SSH to my linux box at home and when I got home, my DSL wasn't working. So I called tech support and they were no help. Finally they sent out a technician yesterday and upgraded my modem (thinking that was the issue since my speed had doubled, maybe the modem couldn't handle the upgrade.) I got home, and the modem was connected, but I still couldn't get online, even with the brand new router I bought yesterday. So I called up Windstream (my ISP) tech support again and went over the router configs with them. That's when I discovered they stopped using PPPOE on the modems. Wondering how long this has been going on and why they didn't tell me! *sigh* Now I've got to figure out a way to connect back to my LAN at home...strictly for testing purposes, of course. J This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. QinetiQ may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security. QinetiQ Limited (Registered in England & Wales: Company Number: 3796233) Registered office: 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD http://www.qinetiq.com. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
