-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:46:34PM -0500, John Heim wrote: > Lots of > ISPs block some ports so you can't set up your own smtp server, for > example. Maybe Tyler's ISP blocks all incoming connections by default > and allows only outgoing and existing connections. > I know, my former ISP blocked outgoing smtp, and what's even worse is that when they out-sourced their tech support, those people insisted that they didn't block any ports. I also have a friend who has some incoming ports blocked as well, so I'm familiar with the port blocking problem, though I've never heard those situations described as public or private ip addressing. > I can't believe an ISP would hand out 10.0.0/24 addresses. Hand out > private IP addresses and do NAT for every customer? Impossible (I > think). It may even be illegal. > I agree totally. However, Tyler insisted on several occasions in private messages that his ISP handed out 10.0.0/24 addresses to him, and I repeatedly kept telling him that it was either his modem or router that was doing that. As you said, for an ISP to be doing NAT for all its customers would be more costly then having a pool of dynamic public IPS to hand out. Greg - -- web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc skype: gregn1 (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) - -- Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager at EU.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEtWH27s9z/XlyUyARAuQ9AJ0bd/+uhKph27XpWxKiOEX/dQUGOgCgkVLm 1DAtvLZe8hNyd6EX4QzAmq4= =E+fP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
