Bob and Alex, Thank you both for educating me a little bit about how my youtube addiction is fed. Bob, thanks for the heads up about being more vigilant. Here's my mental model of how it works for me:
I pay money to my cable provider (Suddenlink). I find a cable coming into my house, attach a cable modem to the cable, then connect my computer to the cable modem. Suddenlink sends my computer an IP number to use while I'm connected (a dynamic address I think it's called). ipconfig says I also have a default gateway. The part that scares me a little is Bob's remark: ------------------------------------------------------- Still, I think the more likely scenario for this thread is that he -- that being me -- doesn't have a firewall solution that is not a personal firewall, which I always recommend for any home user or business. ------------------------------------------------------- What that tells me is that a personal firewall isn't really sufficient. Thanks again for the info, Mike --- On Mon, 5/17/10, Bob Sneidar <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Bob Sneidar <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: getting the user's (internet, not local network) IP address > To: "How to use Revolution" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, May 17, 2010, 6:54 PM > Huh. I'm an IT guy and although I > knew about (what some call) classic routers (we use a double > routing method here) I was not aware that there was a such > thing as fire walling without some kind of NAT protection. > If this is fairly common as you say, I am quite shocked! For > servers I would set up a one to one NAT so that the actual > IP of the servers would not be visible to the public side in > order to prevent IP spoofing. Seems a risky thing to do > these days. > > Still, I think the more likely scenario for this thread is > that he doesn't have a firewall solution that is not a > personal firewall, which I always recommend for any home > user or business. > > Bob > > > On May 17, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Alex Tweedly wrote: > > > On 17/05/2010 23:48, Bob Sneidar wrote: > >> That's because you connect to the internet without > a gateway/router/firewall, in which case there is no public > IP. I would rectify that situation pronto. No one should > connect directly to the internet these days. > >> > > > > No, it doesn't necessarily imply that there is no > router/firewall. It does imply there is no NAT function in > the router/firewall, but it's perfectly possible, and in > fact still fairly common, to have public IP = local IP. Most > common in medium to large companies which got in early in > the IP address space race, and have more than enough > addresses to have no need for address sharing/translation; > however, it's also possible for any home user who buys > dedicated IP address(es) service from their ISP, say if they > want to run their own servers. > > > > And of course you can have a transparent firewall > (e.g. Cisco PIX or ASA) either in your own network or in the > service provider's regardless of whether or not you have NAT > in the router. > > > > -- Alex. > > _______________________________________________ > > use-revolution mailing list > > [email protected] > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and > manage your subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage > your subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
