use pr0n bars. i can see that things such as motion blur do not really obscure the image sufficiently. pixcelate could be reversible but i cannot see it restoring very much.
I switched mine to -2 and now my computer opens the menus before I can even click on them. It's like it just knows what I'm thinking about opening. i did the same and it shut down
I'm sorry but SORBS should be shut down.The amount of time I myself and many colleagues have managed to get onto SOBS because we were classed as a dynamic IP range, despite having blocks of IP's and it's extremely hard to get off it.I understand blocking people with Open relay servers, but being in a dynamic range, which can mean IP's being assigned to you from your ISP is a joke.Everyone should be boycotting these guys, two of the large ISP's in Australia use these guys to filter out spam, and are being blocked by small business's and Education.I've never posted comments on Slashdot yet, but this is one I feel very strongly on, and SORBS should be avoided at all costs.If they deem you a Spammer, despite proving to them you are not, they still reserve the right to keep you on the list and completely screw over your business. i suggest you find yourself a descent ISP. if the isp does not exist, then invest some money in a mail relay with a dedicated hosting provider. just send your mail there and let it deliver the mail for you AND ONLY you.
this is a pretty obvious efect of masquerading NAT. anything with a callback does not work, transparently.
Why do you not consider this a problem? why would it be a problem to a open access wireless provider, a cafe perhaps, or a public transport network etc etc. not everyone needs, or indeed should, require p2p.
most protocols that do require a callback, allow the users to configure the outward ip.
So in an effort to keep things simple for the ISP's clueless netadmins, the ISP is making things more complex for their customers - now instead of things Just Working the user has to do some custom configuration of each piece of software. Setting a specific external address will also break anything *not* going through the NAT, so you better be sure you NAT everything, even if it's staying within the ISP's network.
Not to mention the nasty tweaks that need to be done to DNS to ensure that all A RRs resolve to the correct address (outside the ISP the A RRs need to resolve to the global scope address, inside the ISP they need to resolve to the RFC1918 address). Also a similar arrangement needs to be made for PTR RRs to ensure the addresses resolve to the same name.
i dont know what problems you have had in the past, but for a small ISP NAT can be a real lifesaver.
You can guarantee that I wouldn't remain a customer of an ISP that forces me through a NAT and I would strongly advise all my customers to avoid using such an ISP. NAT causes a *lot* of problems and frankly I don't have time to sort out applications that either don't work or require custom configuration just because of the ISP cutting corners.
it's nothing bad to use NAT when the company cannot afford ip space.
I don't know what sort of joke of an ISP can't afford IP space. That's more or less equivalent to a baker who can't afford flour. Any ISP employing NAT in this way is going to spend more on customer support staff to deal with the problems it creates than they would've spent on the IP space in the first place.
Seriously - if you think that it's easier to set up a network that employs NAT on it's edge instead of running a fully routed transparent network you need to investigate automated routing protocols such as OSPF.
You keep claiming that using NAT saves a large amount of IP network space, but I honestly can't see how it creates a significant saving if you're going to provide 1:1 mapping between all your RFC1918 addresses and the global scope addresses.
You also need to take steps to ensure that no RFC1918 addresses are leaked and this will undoubtedly cause significant problems with any network diagnostics since the usual tools such as traceroute, ping, etc will likely produce erroneous, incomplete and confusing output. you have valid points, that you mentioned a few messages back, but these, requirements are not what every user wants, yes, it's nice to have. but like i said above, sometimes it's better for the isp to use NAT.
perhaps you don't like NAT networks, i didn't say you had to. for me, in my experience at various ISPs in the networking department i have seen NAT very well deployed, and the majority of customers do not realise this. there was one or two instances with things like the blaster worm that caused huge problems on the network where the customers had public IP addresses, their systems caused a lot of problems for others in the same network space. at least the customers on the NAT network did not get this problem.
they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. different strokes, for different folk.
that is technically wrong. there is nothing that NAT breaks. i think you might be confusing masquerading with NAT. nat is just network address translation
However you use it, NAT rewrites the addresses on packets - this _does_ cause problems for anything that relies on the packets getting to the other end unchanged.
If the source address of the packet has been rewritten and the recipient of that packet expects to be able to contact the sender on that address, it will not work unless the NAT has specific knowledge about the protocol and can therefore apply the appropriate translations to the packets it receives.
Similarly, if the protocol contains IP addressing information encapsulated within the payload (examples of this include SIP, ESP, AH, FTP) that information may be invalid if the address's scope is restricted unless the NAT has enough knowledge of the protocol to rewrite the payload as well as the IP header (this is not possible in the case of ESP and AH since it would need knowledge of the private keys).
This applies to *any* form of NAT. this is a pretty obvious efect of masquerading NAT. anything with a callback does not work, transparently.
NAT is highly useful in large ISPs where blocks or single IP addresses can easily be maintained without loosing slack IP addresses as part of a CIDR block where excess was originally allocated.
of course if you think it's better to over allocate and loose IP addresses because you want a full, traditionally routed network then that's up to you.
The above sentences do not make sense. In fact, they still don't make sense if I assume you mean "lose" rather than "loose".
There is no loss of IP addresses involved in allocating small subnets and no requirement to over allocate (other than the usual BGP routing filters which will prevent routes smaller than/20 being propagated).
much of the internet community only use web and email. i would say 10% might use other things too that require a public IP address to communicate
That 10% is set to increase with the growth of peer to peer technologies. It is not the ISP's job to restrict the technologies their customers choose to use.
in these cases it's easy to do 1:1 NAT (BINAT, S/DNAT etc) to achieve this, whilst letting the customer continue with a private IP address.
And this will _still_ cause problems for a lot of protocols since your local IP address will never match the address you present to the rest of the internet. Even worse: depending on how the ISP has set up the routing you may be presenting one IP address to other customers of the ISP and a completely different IP address to everyone else.
This makes life incredibly easy for the network infrastructure people.
This makes life incredibly difficult for the end users. If the network administrators can't deal with setting up a network without the need for NAT then they need to be fired and replaced by people who know how to use the well established tools that automatically sort out stuff like routing for you - it's really not that hard.
Having installed and maintained a lot of large IP networks over many years, I've dealt with both networks that employ NAT extensively and completely NAT-free networks. In my experience, NAT causes a lot more problems than it solves and I would opt for the NAT-free option every time, given a choice. The only exception to this is for certain load sharing and fail-over situations where NAT can prove useful so long as it's use has been well thought out. most protocols that do require a callback, allow the users to configure the outward ip.
i dont know what problems you have had in the past, but for a small ISP NAT can be a real lifesaver. it's nothing bad to use NAT when the company cannot afford ip space.
this is a good thing as it's easier for the ISP to organise their own network infrastructure space.
I'm sorry but NAT is never a good thing since it breaks the peer-to-peer design of the internet, rendering peer-to-peer applications such as VoIP, bittorrent, etc. difficult or impossible to use. that is technically wrong. there is nothing that NAT breaks. i think you might be confusing masquerading with NAT. nat is just network address translation, it's not ip_masq, which is something different that uses NAT for the end result of sharing one or more IP addresses on a network.
Additionally, RFC1918 addresses are of site-local scope - i.e. they are reserved for use on a LAN. Using them on a WAN is bad since it leads to addressing conflicts with people who are using the networks in their intended scope. There is no good reason to abuse RFC1918 networks in this way - global scope IPv4 addresses are not that scarce yet. NAT is highly useful in large ISPs where blocks or single IP addresses can easily be maintained without loosing slack IP addresses as part of a CIDR block where excess was originally allocated.
of course if you think it's better to over allocate and loose IP addresses because you want a full, traditionally routed network then that's up to you.
much of the internet community only use web and email. i would say 10% might use other things too that require a public IP address to communicate, in these cases it's easy to do 1:1 NAT (BINAT, S/DNAT etc) to achieve this, whilst letting the customer continue with a private IP address. This makes life incredibly easy for the network infrastructure people.
Yay, yet another 'toy' programming language, joining the likes of Java, Ruby, Python, and the reset of the bunch.
Suitable I should think, for "I.T" projects, cobbled together by cable-pullers, thinking they are actually programmers.
I'll stick to languages that have at least a professional following, in use by real software engineers (that is, engineers who can legally call themselves engineers), not the run of the mill code monkeys. what do you mean toy programming languages? java is almost identical to c#, give or take some rather small things. would you classify visual basic as a toy, i certainly do? or even pascal, but look a little deeper and pascal executes and compiles faster than c. how can you call a language a toy, it's a tool. if you cant work out what tool is best for a job then you probably do not have good enough experience with that job to know.
Qtel is probably using private ip addresses, and a NAT. this is a good thing as it's easier for the ISP to organise their own network infrastructure space.
You can very easy disable whole Russia. There is only one ISP who connect whole country with outer world. what are you talking about? blocking a carrier is not the same as blocking some ip space. for wikipedia to block golden telecom they would have to block huge ip spaces also... is that so different from blocking the isps in the uk, ukraine, china, for example? anyone in russia can get some ip space, just the same as someone in europe (ripe), or arin(america). anyone, can route an ip block via whatever routers they want, so your comment is rather pointless.
does anyone know what the name of the drug is to cure the disease... i'm sure a vast portion of the male population would like to take it... not so sure about the females...
It doesn't look to me as this is a terminal illness, the infection is gone in a few weeks to months, so it's hardly an explanation for the world's stupidity.
is it me or does gmail flood email accounts with spam? ive never given out my email address, in fact, ive never even sent mail from it, yet the account and others i have with gmail, but very seldom use get an enormous amount of spam. am i alone?
that is TERRIBLE.It should have been: "In soviet russia, social network find you!" i've tried to get the joke right for about the last 6 postings on other threads. i really suck at this joke.
to they take nameserver lookups from the root zones as a 'hit'? if so, is that a brilliant idea as there are name caches. i cannot see what is the device used? do ISPs count the traffic packets to given ip addresses? i really don't see an accurate or honest method.
Slashdot Mirror
use pr0n bars. i can see that things such as motion blur do not really obscure the image sufficiently. pixcelate could be reversible but i cannot see it restoring very much.
i did the same and it shut down
Why do you not consider this a problem?
why would it be a problem to a open access wireless provider, a cafe perhaps, or a public transport network etc etc. not everyone needs, or indeed should, require p2p.
most protocols that do require a callback, allow the users to configure the outward ip.
So in an effort to keep things simple for the ISP's clueless netadmins, the ISP is making things more complex for their customers - now instead of things Just Working the user has to do some custom configuration of each piece of software. Setting a specific external address will also break anything *not* going through the NAT, so you better be sure you NAT everything, even if it's staying within the ISP's network.
Not to mention the nasty tweaks that need to be done to DNS to ensure that all A RRs resolve to the correct address (outside the ISP the A RRs need to resolve to the global scope address, inside the ISP they need to resolve to the RFC1918 address). Also a similar arrangement needs to be made for PTR RRs to ensure the addresses resolve to the same name.
i dont know what problems you have had in the past, but for a small ISP NAT can be a real lifesaver.
You can guarantee that I wouldn't remain a customer of an ISP that forces me through a NAT and I would strongly advise all my customers to avoid using such an ISP. NAT causes a *lot* of problems and frankly I don't have time to sort out applications that either don't work or require custom configuration just because of the ISP cutting corners.
it's nothing bad to use NAT when the company cannot afford ip space.
I don't know what sort of joke of an ISP can't afford IP space. That's more or less equivalent to a baker who can't afford flour. Any ISP employing NAT in this way is going to spend more on customer support staff to deal with the problems it creates than they would've spent on the IP space in the first place.
Seriously - if you think that it's easier to set up a network that employs NAT on it's edge instead of running a fully routed transparent network you need to investigate automated routing protocols such as OSPF.
You keep claiming that using NAT saves a large amount of IP network space, but I honestly can't see how it creates a significant saving if you're going to provide 1:1 mapping between all your RFC1918 addresses and the global scope addresses.
You also need to take steps to ensure that no RFC1918 addresses are leaked and this will undoubtedly cause significant problems with any network diagnostics since the usual tools such as traceroute, ping, etc will likely produce erroneous, incomplete and confusing output. you have valid points, that you mentioned a few messages back, but these, requirements are not what every user wants, yes, it's nice to have. but like i said above, sometimes it's better for the isp to use NAT.
perhaps you don't like NAT networks, i didn't say you had to. for me, in my experience at various ISPs in the networking department i have seen NAT very well deployed, and the majority of customers do not realise this. there was one or two instances with things like the blaster worm that caused huge problems on the network where the customers had public IP addresses, their systems caused a lot of problems for others in the same network space. at least the customers on the NAT network did not get this problem.
they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. different strokes, for different folk.
However you use it, NAT rewrites the addresses on packets - this _does_ cause problems for anything that relies on the packets getting to the other end unchanged.
If the source address of the packet has been rewritten and the recipient of that packet expects to be able to contact the sender on that address, it will not work unless the NAT has specific knowledge about the protocol and can therefore apply the appropriate translations to the packets it receives.
Similarly, if the protocol contains IP addressing information encapsulated within the payload (examples of this include SIP, ESP, AH, FTP) that information may be invalid if the address's scope is restricted unless the NAT has enough knowledge of the protocol to rewrite the payload as well as the IP header (this is not possible in the case of ESP and AH since it would need knowledge of the private keys).
This applies to *any* form of NAT. this is a pretty obvious efect of masquerading NAT. anything with a callback does not work, transparently. NAT is highly useful in large ISPs where blocks or single IP addresses can easily be maintained without loosing slack IP addresses as part of a CIDR block where excess was originally allocated.
of course if you think it's better to over allocate and loose IP addresses because you want a full, traditionally routed network then that's up to you.
The above sentences do not make sense. In fact, they still don't make sense if I assume you mean "lose" rather than "loose".
There is no loss of IP addresses involved in allocating small subnets and no requirement to over allocate (other than the usual BGP routing filters which will prevent routes smaller than
much of the internet community only use web and email. i would say 10% might use other things too that require a public IP address to communicate
That 10% is set to increase with the growth of peer to peer technologies. It is not the ISP's job to restrict the technologies their customers choose to use.
in these cases it's easy to do 1:1 NAT (BINAT, S/DNAT etc) to achieve this, whilst letting the customer continue with a private IP address.
And this will _still_ cause problems for a lot of protocols since your local IP address will never match the address you present to the rest of the internet. Even worse: depending on how the ISP has set up the routing you may be presenting one IP address to other customers of the ISP and a completely different IP address to everyone else.
This makes life incredibly easy for the network infrastructure people.
This makes life incredibly difficult for the end users. If the network administrators can't deal with setting up a network without the need for NAT then they need to be fired and replaced by people who know how to use the well established tools that automatically sort out stuff like routing for you - it's really not that hard.
Having installed and maintained a lot of large IP networks over many years, I've dealt with both networks that employ NAT extensively and completely NAT-free networks. In my experience, NAT causes a lot more problems than it solves and I would opt for the NAT-free option every time, given a choice. The only exception to this is for certain load sharing and fail-over situations where NAT can prove useful so long as it's use has been well thought out. most protocols that do require a callback, allow the users to configure the outward ip.
i dont know what problems you have had in the past, but for a small ISP NAT can be a real lifesaver. it's nothing bad to use NAT when the company cannot afford ip space.
I'm sorry but NAT is never a good thing since it breaks the peer-to-peer design of the internet, rendering peer-to-peer applications such as VoIP, bittorrent, etc. difficult or impossible to use. that is technically wrong. there is nothing that NAT breaks. i think you might be confusing masquerading with NAT. nat is just network address translation, it's not ip_masq, which is something different that uses NAT for the end result of sharing one or more IP addresses on a network. Additionally, RFC1918 addresses are of site-local scope - i.e. they are reserved for use on a LAN. Using them on a WAN is bad since it leads to addressing conflicts with people who are using the networks in their intended scope. There is no good reason to abuse RFC1918 networks in this way - global scope IPv4 addresses are not that scarce yet. NAT is highly useful in large ISPs where blocks or single IP addresses can easily be maintained without loosing slack IP addresses as part of a CIDR block where excess was originally allocated.
of course if you think it's better to over allocate and loose IP addresses because you want a full, traditionally routed network then that's up to you.
much of the internet community only use web and email. i would say 10% might use other things too that require a public IP address to communicate, in these cases it's easy to do 1:1 NAT (BINAT, S/DNAT etc) to achieve this, whilst letting the customer continue with a private IP address. This makes life incredibly easy for the network infrastructure people.
Suitable I should think, for "I.T" projects, cobbled together by cable-pullers, thinking they are actually programmers.
I'll stick to languages that have at least a professional following, in use by real software engineers (that is, engineers who can legally call themselves engineers), not the run of the mill code monkeys. what do you mean toy programming languages? java is almost identical to c#, give or take some rather small things. would you classify visual basic as a toy, i certainly do? or even pascal, but look a little deeper and pascal executes and compiles faster than c. how can you call a language a toy, it's a tool. if you cant work out what tool is best for a job then you probably do not have good enough experience with that job to know.
http://www.ripn.net/ix/en/
i do not like green ham and eggs!
what a bright idea
This page http://www.msu.edu/course/zol/316/tgontreat.htm might shed some light on possible cure. I for one wish to be level headed, maybe that would effect my slashdot profile..
does anyone know what the name of the drug is to cure the disease... i'm sure a vast portion of the male population would like to take it... not so sure about the females...
It doesn't look to me as this is a terminal illness, the infection is gone in a few weeks to months, so it's hardly an explanation for the world's stupidity.
is it me or does gmail flood email accounts with spam? ive never given out my email address, in fact, ive never even sent mail from it, yet the account and others i have with gmail, but very seldom use get an enormous amount of spam. am i alone?
in California you can always find social network, in Soviet Russia socialist find you!!
indeed, only some groups of people will use a given tool.
to they take nameserver lookups from the root zones as a 'hit'? if so, is that a brilliant idea as there are name caches. i cannot see what is the device used? do ISPs count the traffic packets to given ip addresses? i really don't see an accurate or honest method.
greetz from #linuxwarez@efnet
python all the way! or ruby..
well, if this is happening, why isn't intel/amd being questioned about their control over pc chips?
excuse me. i did not RTFA, it was offline. i assumed x was also an int please excuse this. mod parent down if you have points please.