On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 17:57, Craig White wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 03:37, Sanjay Arora wrote: > > O > > > > I am from India and use Ethernet based connectivity (which breaks > > > > frequently) from a cable ISP who provides a private ip address > > > > 172.16.x.x and masqed outbound connectivity. > > > > > > That is really wierd! We have a vpn for a section of Salford Uni with an > > > IP address of 172.16.x.x and it's completely useless (IMO) > > > > > > According to whois though, it's owned by ICANN for private purposes so > > > shouldn't be allocated to anyone! > > > > > Well, it is...but it is being done a lot in India. There are many small > > home operation ISPs who use Linux based NAT boxes to provide > > connectivity to home users. Speed is usually comparable to dial-up 56k > > modems, though they are called BROADBAND always-on connections ;-) Guess > > the only thing broad about it is the name. > > > > In fact MTNL & BSNL the National telcos provide a similar service using > > NAT & address rangs 10.x.x.x, throughout India. I think thatÅ because > > the home user broadband (64K wide) has started to compete with 64K > > leased lines which provide a live IP and cost ten or more times as > > much.Giving private address space stops the inbound services and makes > > the connection much less valuable. > > > > Thats what I want to break out of by using a hosted UML server costing > > 5-10$/month and getting my NAT box to use a VPN getting the inbound > > packets from the hosted ip to my machine. The problem is, I dont know > > how? And the issues regarding security/performance etc. involved. > > > > Comments anyone? > ---- > you are pissing into the wind > > Craig > Craig Is it really so unworkable? or is it just that you cant imagine such bad connectivity in the west? Sanjay.
