Oh, ok. Since the same physical device performs both functions I thought that it's almost the same (that is - you can have a firewall without NAT, but not NAT without firewall). Thanks for clearing that up for me.
And why would I want an external IP for every device on my network? Now I can connect to my network using VPN and access all devices (and hackers can't (hopefully)).
I do not know how it is where you live, but in Lithuania, there is a written warning (in big bold letters, like this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2296505509_4e52568766.jpg?v=0 ) on every cigarette pack (for example: "Smoking kills", "Smoking causes cancer" and others). Also, tobacco advertisements are banned everywhere except you can show brand names of cigarette manufacturers on cigarette packs and on the shelf where they are.
How long till I see "DRM harms your computer" warning on a game box?
a) I too download TV shows. The difference is that they are not shown on TV in Lithuania, so I have to get every episode. Since I like HD (I have a 21" CRT monitor capable of 1920x1440@85Hz) I download 720p versions if I find them. 720p means 1.1GB per episode. Not much, but...
b) that's cool if it does not count toward your cap. Otherwise you have only 9 hours of HDTV per month...
c) Our ISPs also have FTP servers and DC hubs, but usually you can only find popular new movies and a few TV shows, but not old movies or TV shows. The incentive to use ISPs FTP or DC is that you can max your connection as is possible physically (my ADSL plan is 4mbps down, but modem actually connects at 5mbps, so if I download from FTP I get 5mbps). However, ISPs now have a fast national network, so it is not so different anymore. For example the ISP that I hope to go to, provides 100mbps ethernet connection. That's what you get in their local network. If you pay more you can get 100mbps link to all Lithuanian ISPs.
d) games benefit from lower latency, you can play Counter Strike with a dial-up (I did a few years ago). I agree about web surfing, that's why my next router will have traffic shaping and prioritize HTTP over P2P.
e) At least that's good. You can run a server (assuming your upload is sufficient) and/or seed torrents. My cell phone operator counts downloads and uploads (500MB/month at up to 3.6mbps (HSDPA) where available for 15EUR/month) and it's usually OK (because it is not my only connection, only a backup or when I am not at home).
When I download something and the torrent is almost dead, sometimes the download takes weeks...
But on the plus side, because we pay for what we use, there are a number of advantages. My ISP, like most in Australia:
- Is far less contended than most US ISPs. Download speeds are always meet my connected speed. I have an 8/1 Mbps connection, and I get that speed, all the time (~850 kb/s downstream and slightly over 100 kb/s up). Whereas some US ISPs, when I've used them, seem sluggish in peak hours.
- Never fiddles with my traffic. No bittorrent deprioritising, no deep packet inspection, no random throttling or any of that nonsense. In the US though, well you know all about the shenanigans some of your ISPs have been up to.
- Allows me to run anything whatsoever on my connection. Whereas most US DSL providers I have read the AUP for have 20 clauses about how you cant run servers etc.
...
So yeah - don't fear your (very generous!) download caps over there. It's good news for you. Get the 0.1% of people off the network that abuse the hell out of it, and speeds will be faster for the rest of you.
What I do not understand is this:
What good does your "faster speeds" do if you can't download? I have ADSL 4096kbps down 768kbps up (23EUR/month) and in past 12 months I downloaded 2615GB (that's 218GB/month on average) and uploaded 1424GB with peak download of 544GB/month. If my ISP had a bandwidth cap of say 300GB, I would just have to cap my average speed to 960kbps, and I wouldn't really care if the connection speed was 1gbps... Your 25GB/month cap is just another way of saying 80kbps.
I'm planning to go to a new ISP that can offer 100mbps both ways national and 8mbps both ways international for 27EUR/month. I go primarily for the upload 9since I use p2p and don't want to be a leech, who doesn't upload to get at least 1 ratio). Now, it's just a problem of them somehow laying those 55 meters of optic cable...
So, can you tell me what is the point of having a "fast" connection if you can't download anything? You say your ISP does not interfere with p2p transfers (mine also doesn't). What good does that do if you can't download anything?
Where I live, almost all ISPs have their own DC hub and/or FTP server. Since an ISP has more bandwidth in its own network, downloads from local P2P are faster, so a lot of users use this option and do not use international bandwidth. Everyone is happy and "unlimited" connection usually means unlimited (at that max speed what you paid for).
And how do they do the "this user is always downloading so we will give him less bandwidth on a congested network" ?
If ISPs can do that then they should be able to do "this user pays us less, so he will have less bandwidth on a congested network; that user pays us more, so he will get more bandwidth"
OTOH, it'd be kinda cool to rip them to.mp3 (in as lossless a fashion as I can given the obvious constraints with connecting a relatively ancient R2R player to computer)...
/P
Since you already have a tape deck (I assume it is of acceptable quality) then connect it to the computer (decks line out to computers line in) play the tape and record it on the PC. You may want to buy a better sound card if you only have the integrated one. You will have to record in real time.
If my ISP promises me 4mbps download and unlimited traffic that should mean that I can download up to about 1TB per month (450KB/s 24hours a day for 30 days). If they want to limit me to, say, 100GB/month then this amount should be indicated somewhere in the agreement and should not be advertised as "unlimited".
If the network is congested I expect an equal share of the available bandwidth. Actually, I should get a share of the available bandwidth that is proportionate to my max bandwidth. For example, in a congested network I should get four times as much bandwidth as the person paying for 1mbps connection.
ISPs can do whatever they want (for example throttle P2P) just say so in the advertisement or at least when someone asks about it.
I am happy because my ISP appears not to limit my traffic (although I usually download only 100-200GB/month peaking at about 500GB/month)
P.S. why do I have to insert br tags to make a new line?
If I had 100 hard drives I wouldn't need tapes for a long time:)
My suggestion would be:
1. Get a large case, IDE controller cards and use the drives as NAS or SAN (I use hard drives this way, but only 7 of them, 2TB total)
2. If you do not need that much space at once, use the drives as tapes for backup or archiving. Fill the drive, the put it someplace safe (I use tapes for that since they are cheaper (per gigabyte) than hard drives).
When I see the suggestions of destroying working hard drives I can't stop thinking how some people have too much money...
When I buy something from eBay, I use PayPal to pay for it and never encountered any problems. If the item does not arrive after ~40 days I file a dispute and get my money back. PayPal is way cheaper than international bank transfer which would take 10-20EUR depending on the destination country. Even if the seller wants 5% addition to cover PayPal charges it is cheaper than international bank transfer (usually). Also, no a lot of sellers accept credit card directly and paying with PayPal is safer than giving the seller my credit card number
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, ok. Since the same physical device performs both functions I thought that it's almost the same (that is - you can have a firewall without NAT, but not NAT without firewall). Thanks for clearing that up for me.
192.168.0.254 vs 2001:4200:24AB::2
And why would I want an external IP for every device on my network? Now I can connect to my network using VPN and access all devices (and hackers can't (hopefully)).
unless the NAT is stateful and only allows a packet in if there was a packet out before.
how about these rules:
allow from $lan to $internet
allow from $internet to $lan where state=established
block all
Now lets say that I am running a FTP server inside my lan (for lan uses only). No one from the internet can connect to it.
Except for static port forwarding (for bittorrent, emule etc) and VPN.
And if they intercept the DNS request and spoof a reply - is there any way of blocking it?
Why you can't use NAT? Is this some IPv6 limitation or just that there are no IPv6 NAT routers?
I use NAT for security (as a firewall) and for sharing a single external IP between my computers.
My dislike for IPv6 is that it is impossible to remember those long IP addresses.
I do not know how it is where you live, but in Lithuania, there is a written warning (in big bold letters, like this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2296505509_4e52568766.jpg?v=0 ) on every cigarette pack (for example: "Smoking kills", "Smoking causes cancer" and others). Also, tobacco advertisements are banned everywhere except you can show brand names of cigarette manufacturers on cigarette packs and on the shelf where they are.
How long till I see "DRM harms your computer" warning on a game box?
a) I too download TV shows. The difference is that they are not shown on TV in Lithuania, so I have to get every episode. Since I like HD (I have a 21" CRT monitor capable of 1920x1440@85Hz) I download 720p versions if I find them. 720p means 1.1GB per episode. Not much, but...
b) that's cool if it does not count toward your cap. Otherwise you have only 9 hours of HDTV per month...
c) Our ISPs also have FTP servers and DC hubs, but usually you can only find popular new movies and a few TV shows, but not old movies or TV shows. The incentive to use ISPs FTP or DC is that you can max your connection as is possible physically (my ADSL plan is 4mbps down, but modem actually connects at 5mbps, so if I download from FTP I get 5mbps). However, ISPs now have a fast national network, so it is not so different anymore. For example the ISP that I hope to go to, provides 100mbps ethernet connection. That's what you get in their local network. If you pay more you can get 100mbps link to all Lithuanian ISPs.
d) games benefit from lower latency, you can play Counter Strike with a dial-up (I did a few years ago). I agree about web surfing, that's why my next router will have traffic shaping and prioritize HTTP over P2P.
e) At least that's good. You can run a server (assuming your upload is sufficient) and/or seed torrents. My cell phone operator counts downloads and uploads (500MB/month at up to 3.6mbps (HSDPA) where available for 15EUR/month) and it's usually OK (because it is not my only connection, only a backup or when I am not at home).
When I download something and the torrent is almost dead, sometimes the download takes weeks...
But on the plus side, because we pay for what we use, there are a number of advantages. My ISP, like most in Australia:
- Is far less contended than most US ISPs. Download speeds are always meet my connected speed. I have an 8/1 Mbps connection, and I get that speed, all the time (~850 kb/s downstream and slightly over 100 kb/s up). Whereas some US ISPs, when I've used them, seem sluggish in peak hours.
- Never fiddles with my traffic. No bittorrent deprioritising, no deep packet inspection, no random throttling or any of that nonsense. In the US though, well you know all about the shenanigans some of your ISPs have been up to.
- Allows me to run anything whatsoever on my connection. Whereas most US DSL providers I have read the AUP for have 20 clauses about how you cant run servers etc.
...
So yeah - don't fear your (very generous!) download caps over there. It's good news for you. Get the 0.1% of people off the network that abuse the hell out of it, and speeds will be faster for the rest of you.
What I do not understand is this:
What good does your "faster speeds" do if you can't download? I have ADSL 4096kbps down 768kbps up (23EUR/month) and in past 12 months I downloaded 2615GB (that's 218GB/month on average) and uploaded 1424GB with peak download of 544GB/month. If my ISP had a bandwidth cap of say 300GB, I would just have to cap my average speed to 960kbps, and I wouldn't really care if the connection speed was 1gbps... Your 25GB/month cap is just another way of saying 80kbps.
I'm planning to go to a new ISP that can offer 100mbps both ways national and 8mbps both ways international for 27EUR/month. I go primarily for the upload 9since I use p2p and don't want to be a leech, who doesn't upload to get at least 1 ratio). Now, it's just a problem of them somehow laying those 55 meters of optic cable...
So, can you tell me what is the point of having a "fast" connection if you can't download anything? You say your ISP does not interfere with p2p transfers (mine also doesn't). What good does that do if you can't download anything?
Where I live, almost all ISPs have their own DC hub and/or FTP server. Since an ISP has more bandwidth in its own network, downloads from local P2P are faster, so a lot of users use this option and do not use international bandwidth. Everyone is happy and "unlimited" connection usually means unlimited (at that max speed what you paid for).
And how do they do the "this user is always downloading so we will give him less bandwidth on a congested network" ?
If ISPs can do that then they should be able to do "this user pays us less, so he will have less bandwidth on a congested network; that user pays us more, so he will get more bandwidth"
Since you already have a tape deck (I assume it is of acceptable quality) then connect it to the computer (decks line out to computers line in) play the tape and record it on the PC. You may want to buy a better sound card if you only have the integrated one. You will have to record in real time.If my ISP promises me 4mbps download and unlimited traffic that should mean that I can download up to about 1TB per month (450KB/s 24hours a day for 30 days). If they want to limit me to, say, 100GB/month then this amount should be indicated somewhere in the agreement and should not be advertised as "unlimited".
If the network is congested I expect an equal share of the available bandwidth. Actually, I should get a share of the available bandwidth that is proportionate to my max bandwidth. For example, in a congested network I should get four times as much bandwidth as the person paying for 1mbps connection.
ISPs can do whatever they want (for example throttle P2P) just say so in the advertisement or at least when someone asks about it.
I am happy because my ISP appears not to limit my traffic (although I usually download only 100-200GB/month peaking at about 500GB/month)
P.S. why do I have to insert br tags to make a new line?
If I had 100 hard drives I wouldn't need tapes for a long time :)
My suggestion would be:
1. Get a large case, IDE controller cards and use the drives as NAS or SAN (I use hard drives this way, but only 7 of them, 2TB total)
2. If you do not need that much space at once, use the drives as tapes for backup or archiving. Fill the drive, the put it someplace safe (I use tapes for that since they are cheaper (per gigabyte) than hard drives).
When I see the suggestions of destroying working hard drives I can't stop thinking how some people have too much money...
When I buy something from eBay, I use PayPal to pay for it and never encountered any problems. If the item does not arrive after ~40 days I file a dispute and get my money back. PayPal is way cheaper than international bank transfer which would take 10-20EUR depending on the destination country. Even if the seller wants 5% addition to cover PayPal charges it is cheaper than international bank transfer (usually). Also, no a lot of sellers accept credit card directly and paying with PayPal is safer than giving the seller my credit card number