[NTLUG:Discuss] dsl or cable modem w/ static IP in Richardso n?

[Steve Egbert]

You can use the bandwidth limiter that is including with Linux  (shaper.o)
which I use to ensure that I don't go over my artificial limit of 64Kbps for
certain services along with experimental QoS in Linux 2.4.

The IP address of the AT&T security scanner is obviously:

Name:    authorized-scan.security.home.net
Address:  24.0.94.130


Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Hauck [mailto:xdesign at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 12:20 PM
> To: discuss at ntlug.org
> Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] dsl or cable modem w/ static IP 
> in Richardson?
> 
> 
> I'm an @home user and I love it also.  It's effective and 
> clean.  DSL is a
> close second but you can take it for granted that running 
> servers is in
> violation of any agreements unless you are buying commercial 
> grade service.
> 
> I would love to know the IPs they run these port scanners 
> from.  I'd block
> them in a heartbeat to be sure I don't get caught.  I like to 
> run personal
> web pages and stuff like that on my linux router box because it's
> entertaining.  So if anyone knows a handy way to log 
> port-scan activities so
> I can isolate where these are coming from, I'll simply block them out.
> 
> Later, ambitious projects include setting up my own domain 
> services complete
> with email. :)  I think I will be able to pull that off 
> nicely.  I've done
> that already with a SWBell DSL connection and it's working 
> very very well
> though it took DNS about 48 hours to fully propogate.  I'll 
> know what to
> expect the next time.
> 
> I suspect no one cares unofficially unless I start using 
> loads of bandwidth,
> which I currently do not.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris Cox <cjcox at acm.org>
> To: <discuss at ntlug.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] dsl or cable modem w/ static IP 
> in Richardson?
> 
> 
> > @home claims that the IP won't change unless they're forced to
> > to some new network segregation based on utilization.  I've only
> > had @home since October.  BLAZING downloads at about 2.5mbps and
> > getting over 1mbps on upload.
> >
> > BUT...(there's always a BUT)... they HAVE NO CLUE how to handle
> > capacity on their mail servers.  They know this and are supposedly
> > in a VERY long process of upgrading things to support the demand.
> > When their mail server is up (it's been up consistently over the
> > past few weeks..), it's DOG slow! (a 14.4K modem to an analog ISP
> > will beat it).
> >
> > Also, @home does periodically run port scanners looking for
> > things like nntp and http servers.  You will be in breach 
> of contract
> > if you run high load servers on their net... it's not designed
> > to handle it and will just make all of you neigbors really mad
> > at you.  @home does provide free web pages as part of the deal...
> > however, I hear it's about as slow as their email servers.
> >
> > My guess is that even with your existing DSL ISP, you might be
> > violating your agreement by running servers through them...
> > maybe not.
> >
> > There a few posted horror stories from people trying to run
> > high load servers on @home, but I don't know of anyone
> > personally that has been reprimanded for running a server
> > on their net (probably the key is when you get /.'d or
> > something that generates high load).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>