Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 ... Last
[#] Fri May 23 2008 12:53:01 EDT from Freakdog @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Feh...SBC/AT&T gives static IP allocation via dynamic allocation, just like we would with DHCP on our own networks.

If the cable company was telling you that they couldn't because they didn't have the technology, then their techs are idiots.

[#] Fri May 23 2008 13:10:48 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Cable company techs being idiots is not news.

[#] Fri May 23 2008 15:00:05 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I will give them a call thanks.

[#] Sun Jun 15 2008 16:53:54 EDT from demonstalker @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Looking for DSL?


Give us a call. NetK2NE (530) 893-5111
Rates start at $9.99/month.
We offer service throughout the AT&T and Verizon networks.
If you are in a Verizon service area, you can order DRY LOOP DSL through us (no dialtone, just internet) and use VoIP for your phone service - saves a BUNDLE of $$$.

[#] Sun Jun 15 2008 19:27:36 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I disbelieve.
Verizon won't sell dsl where they sell fios and therefore YOU can't sell dsl where they sell fios, so nice try, thanks for playing.

[#] Sun Jun 15 2008 20:18:50 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hey Vince, nice to see you with us again.

Any word on whether Verizon will ever allow third party ISP's on the fiber network?

[#] Mon Jun 16 2008 12:36:01 EDT from demonstalker @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually, it all depends on how you order DSL in Verizon/FiOS areas. If you are not a Verizon DSL customer, the tariff requires that they sell ME a dry loop to your location, and allow ME to order DSL for you on that loop.

Ig: we are negotiating that issue "as we speak." Cannot predict the outcome of that since the legalCritters handling this for me are not at the point where a reasonable prediction of the outcome is "visible."

--DS

[#] Mon Jun 16 2008 13:25:23 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually, it all depends on how you order DSL in Verizon/FiOS areas.

If you are not a Verizon DSL customer, the tariff requires that they
sell ME a dry loop to your location, and allow ME to order DSL for you

on that loop.

I'd like to see that actually happen somewhere.

Sure there's all sorts of laws requiring verizon to do certain things, but they can't make a law requiring verizon to support DSL at a loss (well, they can, but the phone company won't allow it to happen) so at some point they're just going to stop running wires you can run dsl on...

[#] Mon Jun 16 2008 23:00:07 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

As you already know, a couple of years ago Verizon decided that the fiber network did not fall under their obligation to offer unbundled elements. I would be delighted if this changed. I want to be on the fiber network but I will not tolerate Verizon Online as my ISP. I need geek-friendly services like Static IP and bring-your-own-device VoIP.

I don't know what's worse: DSL providers wholesaling FiOS and offering VPN back to their network so they can provide you unfiltered static addresses, or the cable company using a VPN to provide you static addresses because they can't figure out how to deliver that service natively over their own network

Do let us know if and when you get some results from the legal team.

[#] Tue Jun 17 2008 08:35:07 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I see things like this in nature and wonder how they came to be.
And what it usually amounts to is that they didn't know who to hire.
I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single network genius anywhere at the cable comapny. Or if they is, he's the annoying one they don't listen to at all.

Maybe they think that they're better off funneling everything through a vpn so that when the govt needs to snoop its a lot easier....

[#] Tue Jun 17 2008 10:05:58 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

There are probably a few kinda-sorta-smart network people at the cable company ... and a *lot* of pointy-haired management.

They probably did a cost benefit analysis and determined that the effort required to get all of the subnetting and routing correct across hundreds or thousands of neighborhood segments would not be worth it ... nor would it be worth it to switch all customers to something lower-level than IP (which is what Verizon did on their DSL network) in order to address each subscriber properly. Incidentally, the latter is what makes open access possible.

In the end, they probably determined that tunneling IP over IP would be the cheapest, least-effort method to reaching the expected number of subscribers.
It's possible that it isn't even an encrypted tunnel, just some simple GRE setup, so they can cram more subscribers onto fewer head-end routers without incurring additional load from encryption.

At least it's doing all of this within their own network, so it's not all that bad. For the $60-70 they charge, it's an attractive option for all the small businesses that have on-site mail servers.

[#] Tue Jun 17 2008 11:15:09 EDT from Freakdog @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The bugger is that they're using DHCP, and in some cases, they're using authentication models.

If the phone ocmpany can figure out how to set up static IP over PPPoE, based on authentication, surely the cable company can use the same thing.

And if they're not using PPP, then all they need to do is use the MAC address of the router's interface to do the same thing.



[#] Sun Jun 29 2008 09:23:15 EDT from IO ERROR @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

PPPoE is an abomination and insult to all that is good and holy in the world.

[#] Sun Jun 29 2008 14:34:07 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Are there any consumer-grade routers that do PPTP instead of (or in addition to) PPPoE?

[#] Sun Jun 29 2008 17:22:04 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Sun Jun 29 2008 14:34:07 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar@uncnsrd

Are there any consumer-grade routers that do PPTP instead of (or in addition to) PPPoE?
I don't know if you'd regard it as consumer-grade, (although certainly small-business grade), but the LinkSys RV082 can do that quite well, and it isn't absurdly expensive.

[#] Sun Jun 29 2008 21:46:44 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

We've been tossing around the idea of offering a service that provides static IP addresses to people who are at locations where they can only get dynamic addresses, by using PPTP to get to a network at our data center, whereupon they are assigned a public, static IP address.

We rolled out an account for Ford as a pilot project. He can speak more about his experience, but it seems to be getting the job done. The biggest problem I can see so far is that it's a lot of work to configure a computer to build a PPTP tunnel and keep it establshed, with automatic reconnect and everything. So, I'm thinking it would be nice if we could reliably preconfigure a low-end router and send that out to the subscriber.

Whiche leads to another question ... leaving out the cost of buying or renting a router, what do you all think is a fair price for this type of service?
What would you pay for a tunnelized static IP address? How about a tunnelized static /29 subnet?

[#] Mon Jun 30 2008 10:40:44 EDT from roue @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I've been using OpenVPN to do similar things. It's a piece of cake to configure (one config file and a couple of keys).

[#] Mon Jun 30 2008 11:00:23 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What people are telling me about OpenVPN is that it's really inconvenient to have to distribute certificates instead of simply setting up login credentials.
We all know it's more secure, but often it's not practical. They ought to offer both modes.

It is nice to not have to worry about people having trouble punching through firewalls though.

[#] Tue Jul 01 2008 05:50:23 EDT from mcbridematt @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I can't speak for the hardware you can buy where you live, but down under just about every ADSL2 modem+router combination you can buy has an inbuilt PPTP and IPSec endpoint clients. I'd be suprised if you weren't able to obtain such hardware easily, telco monopolies withstanding. 

vtun could be something to look at, less painful than OpenVPN if you can live with a password to authenticate at each end. It provides you with a typical tun/tap iface and you can script how it gets set up right in the config file. I've used it successfully for some very unorthodox tunneling projects :) You could deploy such software on hardware such as a Linksys WRT54GL I guess..

Sun Jun 29 2008 09:46:44 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar@uncnsrd

We've been tossing around the idea of offering a service that provides static IP addresses to people who are at locations where they can only get dynamic addresses, by using PPTP to get to a network at our data center, whereupon they are assigned a public, static IP address.

We rolled out an account for Ford as a pilot project. He can speak more about his experience, but it seems to be getting the job done. The biggest problem I can see so far is that it's a lot of work to configure a computer to build a PPTP tunnel and keep it establshed, with automatic reconnect and everything. So, I'm thinking it would be nice if we could reliably preconfigure a low-end router and send that out to the subscriber.

Whiche leads to another question ... leaving out the cost of buying or renting a router, what do you all think is a fair price for this type of service? What would you pay for a tunnelized static IP address? How about a tunnelized static /29 subnet?


[#] Tue Jul 01 2008 21:32:06 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Certificates can be expired or revoked or verified from a central server.
Some food for thought if this is a billable enterprise.

Go to page: First ... 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 ... Last