getting the user's (internet, not local network) IP address
mikekann at yahoo.com
Mon May 17 21:14:42 EDT 2010
Bob and Alex,
Thank you both for educating me a little bit about how my youtube addiction is fed. Bob, thanks for the heads up about being more vigilant. Here's my mental model of how it works for me:
I pay money to my cable provider (Suddenlink). I find a cable coming into my house, attach a cable modem to the cable, then connect my computer to the cable modem. Suddenlink sends my computer an IP number to use while I'm connected (a dynamic address I think it's called). ipconfig says I also have a default gateway.
The part that scares me a little is Bob's remark:
Still, I think the more likely scenario for this thread is that he -- that being me -- doesn't have a firewall solution that is not a personal firewall, which I always recommend for any home user or business.
What that tells me is that a personal firewall isn't really sufficient.
Thanks again for the info,
--- On Mon, 5/17/10, Bob Sneidar <bobs at twft.com> wrote:
> From: Bob Sneidar <bobs at twft.com>
> Subject: Re: getting the user's (internet, not local network) IP address
> To: "How to use Revolution" <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
> Date: Monday, May 17, 2010, 6:54 PM
> Huh. I'm an IT guy and although I
> knew about (what some call) classic routers (we use a double
> routing method here) I was not aware that there was a such
> thing as fire walling without some kind of NAT protection.
> If this is fairly common as you say, I am quite shocked! For
> servers I would set up a one to one NAT so that the actual
> IP of the servers would not be visible to the public side in
> order to prevent IP spoofing. Seems a risky thing to do
> these days.
> Still, I think the more likely scenario for this thread is
> that he doesn't have a firewall solution that is not a
> personal firewall, which I always recommend for any home
> user or business.
> On May 17, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
> > On 17/05/2010 23:48, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> >> That's because you connect to the internet without
> a gateway/router/firewall, in which case there is no public
> IP. I would rectify that situation pronto. No one should
> connect directly to the internet these days.
> > No, it doesn't necessarily imply that there is no
> router/firewall. It does imply there is no NAT function in
> the router/firewall, but it's perfectly possible, and in
> fact still fairly common, to have public IP = local IP. Most
> common in medium to large companies which got in early in
> the IP address space race, and have more than enough
> addresses to have no need for address sharing/translation;
> however, it's also possible for any home user who buys
> dedicated IP address(es) service from their ISP, say if they
> want to run their own servers.
> > And of course you can have a transparent firewall
> (e.g. Cisco PIX or ASA) either in your own network or in the
> service provider's regardless of whether or not you have NAT
> in the router.
> > -- Alex.
> > _______________________________________________
> > use-revolution mailing list
> > use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and
> manage your subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage
> your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode