Chat window and DOS attack on the forum.

[Simon]

what is the difference ?

[Monkeh]

The thing with IP's is that it is easy to appear to come from another Ip and many ISP's have a whole load of users behind one IP. I cannot download from most file hosting sites because it tells me i am already downloading a file, this is because someone else not too far away on the same exchange possibly is already downloading a file and we have the same IP. It was different when i had cable but then I will no longer tolerate virgin media's arrogance and treachery.

I don't know how the IP system works but i guess there are not enough to go round.

I doubt you have the same IP as anyone else. More likely your current choice of scumbag ISP uses a transparent proxy.

what is the difference ?

96 bits. I have as many IPv6 addresses as my disposal as there are possible IPv4 addresses.

[Bloch]

what is the difference ?

A bit more IP adresses 

The older IPv4 only supports a maximum 32 bit internet address, which translates to 2^32 IP addresses available for assignment (about 4.29 billion total). IPv6 utilizes 128 bit web addresses, allowing a maximum 2^128 available addresses: 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000; which if you couldn’t already tell is a very big number.

So a need for a router per modem is not necessary. My guess is that every modem will get 1000 IP adresses.

[Monkeh]

what is the difference ?

A bit more IP adresses 

The older IPv4 only supports a maximum 32 bit internet address, which translates to 2^32 IP addresses available for assignment (about 4.29 billion total). IPv6 utilizes 128 bit web addresses, allowing a maximum 2^128 available addresses: 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000; which if you couldn’t already tell is a very big number.

So a need for a router per modem is not necessary. My guess is that every modem will get 1000 IP adresses.

No, everyone should get a /48, unless the ISP is being stupid. That's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs. I have two at my disposal and can easily replace them with /64s if I choose. Which is, well, rather a few more.

You still need a router and a firewall. Don't confuse NAT with real routers.

[madires]

The thing with IP's is that it is easy to appear to come from another Ip and many ISP's have a whole load of users behind one IP. I cannot download from most file hosting sites because it tells me i am already downloading a file, this is because someone else not too far away on the same exchange possibly is already downloading a file and we have the same IP. It was different when i had cable but then I will no longer tolerate virgin media's arrogance and treachery.

I don't know how the IP system works but i guess there are not enough to go round.

For full/real internet access one needs to have a dedicated public IP address, even if it's a dynamic one. All other solutions with proxies and carrier grade NAT where several users share the same public IP address(es) are broken by design. You may call that web access :-) Unfortunately we'll see more of those in the near future caused by the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. Most ISPs seem to be reluctant in providing IPv6. It isn't brand new, it's over ten years old! More than enough time to engineer your network and OSS for IPv6.

[Rufus]

I cannot download from most file hosting sites because it tells me i am already downloading a file

I doubt you have the same IP as anyone else. More likely your current choice of scumbag ISP uses a transparent proxy.

More likely someone reported kiddy porn on the file hosting site which put it on the UK Internet Watch Foundation list and causes all access to the entire site to be routed through a proxy which blocks access to the URLs claimed to contain kiddy porn. That makes just about every access from the UK appear to be from the same IP address.

For a few days no one in the UK could edit Wikipedia because the IWF thought the British needed to be protected from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer or perhaps that the girl needed to be protected from the British 32 years too late, or something. I have no idea what the IWF thinks they are achieving.

[Monkeh]

I cannot download from most file hosting sites because it tells me i am already downloading a file

I doubt you have the same IP as anyone else. More likely your current choice of scumbag ISP uses a transparent proxy.

More likely someone reported kiddy porn on the file hosting site which put it on the UK Internet Watch Foundation list and causes all access to the entire site to be routed through a proxy which blocks access to the URLs claimed to contain kiddy porn. That makes just about every access from the UK appear to be from the same IP address.

For a few days no one in the UK could edit Wikipedia because the IWF thought the British needed to be protected from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer or perhaps that the girl needed to be protected from the British 32 years too late, or something. I have no idea what the IWF thinks they are achieving.

FUD. That little incident never affected me or anyone not on the big-name consumer ISPs.

[Rufus]

FUD. That little incident never affected me or anyone not on the big-name consumer ISPs.

Oh Sorry

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.

"Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."

When I said no one I should have said 95%.

[Monkeh]

Estimated 95%.

This is why smart people don't use BT. Or Virgin, or Talktalk, or Orange, or Sky, or..

[IanB]

Major speed problems as of right now (1430 UTC). Very slow server responses and page updates.

[Rufus]

Estimated 95%.

This is why smart people don't use BT. Or Virgin, or Talktalk, or Orange, or Sky, or..

and peedyfiles.

don't use BT. Or Virgin, or Talktalk, or Orange, or Sky, or..

[Rufus]

Major speed problems as of right now (1430 UTC). Very slow server responses and page updates.

Say that again
www.eevblog.com
99 packets received/99 transmitted :   0% PACKET LOSS
Round Trip Time (in milliseconds) Max/Min/Av: 1457/768/1045
www.google.com
99 packets received/99 transmitted :   0% PACKET LOSS
Round Trip Time (in milliseconds) Max/Min/Av: 16/15/15

all the delay to eevblog is in the last hop.

[SeanB]

Having a machine paer customer for the dedicated servers is to make it easy to manage, as if you get a court order you can point to a machine and PC Plod ( who in the best case is wary of IT, and thinks a rack of 100 blades is one computer) can take one only, without wiping out 99 other clients on the same server rack.

[Kevin.D]

EEV forum really slow from here today ,much worse than it was yesterday .it's almost unusable

[chrome]

Having a machine paer customer for the dedicated servers is to make it easy to manage, as if you get a court order you can point to a machine and PC Plod ( who in the best case is wary of IT, and thinks a rack of 100 blades is one computer) can take one only, without wiping out 99 other clients on the same server rack.

You can still do a 2U rackspace server per customer and still save a lot of room...

[SeanB]

Chrome, the plods took an entire rack because it had **ONE** server that they were taking. A box on a shelf is something that even a TSA agent can understand is a "compuuter thingie".

[Simon]

The forum is having some slow page loads for me too. At home on the PC or at work on my mobile phone (that is getting it's connection off the work pc not mobile network..... yet)

[Monkeh]

Yeah I am in that list also. So is it really just a software issue being misinterpreted as an attack afterall? So you keeping the IP s banned? Should I pm you my IP that's on the list?

Those who are on the list please email me and let me know your IP.
Thanks

Have emailed, have sent PM, still having to tunnel.

[nitro2k01]

Banning Ip addresses can cause no end of problems. It might be the most fool proof method but it is too risky in blocking legit connections.

Actually, if you put some research into it, you can tell something about the IP address. I run a small forum with almost no real activity, which currently acts more as a spam trap. IP addresses are assigned to entities in blocks. An address might belong to a block which belongs to a consumer ISP. In this case, yes, it's risky. On the other hand, the address might belong to a range that belongs to a data center. In this case I generally block not only that IP, but all of the ranges I can find belonging to that data center. I've noticed that a provider by the name Ubiquity Servers are hosting a few servers that are used for spamming forums.

Another thing one might try is to ban TOR and other proxies, at least from doing some things. Or, requiring an extra captcha or so to be filled in when registering a new account over a proxy. However, I wouldn't generally advise banning proxies without putting thought into the decision since some people in some regimes might rely on them to connect to the outside world.