odd networking issue
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Aperture bug #1002
Next: Old game: Coins
From: Jim on 21 Feb 2010 06:52 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Then do you imagine that this "passing the request upstream" is your > router cleverly translating a UDP broadcast protocol like DHCP into a > connection based protocol like PPP? It's possible this might help - it's a screen shot of the DHCP configuration menu: http://skitch.com/greyarea/nsmh1/http-192.168.2.1-xslt-page-c-2-4 I'd originally had it set to the first entry - I think it defaults to that. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: James Taylor on 21 Feb 2010 13:16 Jim wrote: > It's possible this might help - it's a screen shot of the DHCP > configuration menu: > > http://skitch.com/greyarea/nsmh1/http-192.168.2.1-xslt-page-c-2-4 That links to a page that requires JavaScript but a quick look in the HTML source revealed that the graphic you intended to link to is: <http://img.skitch.com/20100221-phh3ad71nt74gyc7awgf5anehe.jpg> What is under the menu opposite "WAN IP Mapping"? Is "wotan" a hostname on your LAN? I think wotan cannot be the BSD gateway box, as that would not have the IP 192.168.2.2. Anyway, it doesn't tell us much except that the router's DHCP server can be set to give out addresses from a private pool, or instead to give out the WAN IP, which we had already deduced. What I was really curious to know is whether I was right in my assumption that the router memorises the MAC address of the machine that you allocate the WAN IP to (that top menu option) so that it can answer that machine's DHCP requests with the WAN IP instead of a private IP. -- James Taylor
From: Jim on 21 Feb 2010 13:29 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Jim wrote: > > > It's possible this might help - it's a screen shot of the DHCP > > configuration menu: > > > > http://skitch.com/greyarea/nsmh1/http-192.168.2.1-xslt-page-c-2-4 > > That links to a page that requires JavaScript but a quick look in the > HTML source revealed that the graphic you intended to link to is: > <http://img.skitch.com/20100221-phh3ad71nt74gyc7awgf5anehe.jpg> > > What is under the menu opposite "WAN IP Mapping"? Pretty much the same sort of thing - "Router WAN IP Address (defauls) followed by a string of private IPs in the 10.26.242.x range. > > Is "wotan" a hostname on your LAN? I think wotan cannot be the BSD > gateway box, as that would not have the IP 192.168.2.2. wotan *is* the BSD box. It has IPs 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.2 > > Anyway, it doesn't tell us much except that the router's DHCP server can > be set to give out addresses from a private pool, or instead to give out > the WAN IP, which we had already deduced. > > What I was really curious to know is whether I was right in my > assumption that the router memorises the MAC address of the machine that > you allocate the WAN IP to (that top menu option) so that it can answer > that machine's DHCP requests with the WAN IP instead of a private IP. I think it does. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Ben Shimmin on 21 Feb 2010 13:36 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid>: [...] > That links to a page that requires JavaScript You must find the web a whole lot of fun... b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `It is like Swinburne sat down on his soul's darkest night and designed an organized sport.' -- David Foster Wallace, _Infinite Jest_, on American football
From: James Taylor on 21 Feb 2010 14:44
Ben Shimmin wrote: > James Taylor wrote: > >> That links to a page that requires JavaScript > > You must find the web a whole lot of fun... Oops! You pressed a hot button. As everyone knows, it's not safe these days to browse with JavaScript enabled by default, and by using NoScript it's a simple matter to enable specific sites once you judge that they can be trusted to detect and filter XSS, and once you judge the JavaScript enhancements to be worthwhile the risk. Obviously, you can't enable JavaScript *before* you've made those judgements, you have to get to know the site first. The problem arises with poorly constructed websites that are so broken that you can't even see the content or navigate the site without enabling JavaScript. On such dodgy sites you either have to make a leap of blind faith (a leap before you look) or, like me, take their shoddy construction as evidence of their incompetence at both making an accessible site and at being able to secure it against XSS, etc. Therefore, if a site doesn't work without JavaScript, I take it as a timely warning that I wouldn't want to use the site anyway. And, after all, the competitor's site is but a click away. Posting a link to a poorly constructed, inaccessible, and heavily JavaScript dependent site like skitch.com instead of a direct link to the graphic is about as inconsiderate as sending someone an HTML format email instead of a plain text email, or emailing someone a blank email with a Word document attached that contains plain text that could have been the body of the email. People often do these things, but it's not very thoughtful and certainly demonstrates a certain lack of clue. </rant> -- James Taylor |