Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Attila]

This is really OT. It's not about amule per se but I need to tap into the collective knowledge of amule users. It concerns my ISP (the largest one in the Spanish state). I have a 512Kbs dl asdl line and I'm sitting behind a router (NAT) with static ip's not visible to the  outside world. On Friday evening (GMT+2), possibly as a result of all those Starwars illegal downloads, my net connection became unusable. At the time I was using amule. My NAT internal ip was xxx.xxx.0.2 (...0.1 being the gateway). My girlfriend (sitting beside me was using ...0.3). Her connection was normal except she could no longer ping. I was still connected to amule which was functioning normally (both ul's and dl's) but I couldn't use my browser, pop3 client, sip phone (I connect via an fwd number) etc.  Interestingly I could ping if I knew the ip number. The DNS wasn't accessible. Very strange. Anyway, I changed my ip to ...0.4 and things went back to "normal". I started up amule and of course got a low id because my ports are redirected ...0.2. You may ask why not reconfigure the router? But that's another story. I'm already angry enough with my ISP. Anyway, after about 1 hr my new ip stopped working. I switched ip numbers again, this time to ...0.5 but now I'm afraid to run amule. My isp seems to have disabled the ping port (I don't remember which port it is) because now when I ping somedomain.name the DNS resolves the name but there's no packets received. Sorry to bother you with this but I don't know where else to turn. I've googled around and there was some mention of my ISP limiting access in 2003 to router ip's 80.28... mine is 80.32... so I guess they've increased their coverage. Anyway I'm afraid to use amule because sooner or later I'll run out of ip numbers.
Is there any hope/work arounds? etc.
Thanks,
Jonathan

[ken]

I don't have any explanation for what you are seeing, but I don't think things are happening the way you think.

You seem to be thinking that when you use aMule on one of your private IPs, then your ISP is somehow doing something that is disabling certain services for that private IP.  But the thing is: private IPs are private.  Your ISP can't distinguish between your computer running as ...0.2 or ...0.5.  So, there's no reason for services to start working again when you change.  If your ISP was disabling services because of aMule traffic, they would be disabled for your whole LAN, not just certain private IPs within your LAN -- because to your ISP they all look like one computer.

[Attila]

Hi Ken,
Thanks for your reply. I understand what you're saying. On Monday, I'll give the ISP a call and try and find out what's happening. They seem to be blocking ICMP packets for all private ip's. The only time after the "event" on Friday that I could ping external ip numbers was when I noticed I didn't have DNS access on my original private ip and before I changed ip numbers. Here's what I know: my girlfriend (on the same network) has a Win2k laptop. She's on ...0.3 which works except no ICMP. If she changes to ...0.2 she loses connectivity just like I did. Conclusion: the problem has nothing to do with the OS. I've changed cables, places where I plug into the router etc. The problem is the same. I changed to ...0.4, started amule (with low id) and one hour later boom, no connectivity. I change to ...0.5 and I've been running at this number for over 24 hours without a  problem. I could experiment again and startup amule and see what happens. At some point I'll run out of ip numbers (I don't know if I can use the full 256 (- admin numbers) range.
Taking your remarks to heart, which I do, then a global change seems to have internal system implications that interact with system settings causing other things (system specific) to fail. Does this make any sense at all?
thanks again,
Jonathan

[Attila]

Hi again Ken,
I've been doing more experimenting. Here's some ping data:
Group 1 using 172.26.02
jdkaye@Attila:~$ ping http://www.amule.org
PING http://www.amule.org (82.149.231.177) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- http://www.amule.org ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 10998ms

jdkaye@Attila:~$ ping 82.149.231.177
PING 82.149.231.177 (82.149.231.177) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- 82.149.231.177 ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6998ms

Now I go back to 172.26.0.2 (this is the only private ip that has ports redirected to it)
jdkaye@Attila:~$ ping 82.149.231.177
PING 82.149.231.177 (82.149.231.177) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=112 ms
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=115 ms
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=113 ms
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=115 ms
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=115 ms
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=6 ttl=50 time=116 ms
64 bytes from 82.149.231.177: icmp_seq=7 ttl=50 time=118 ms

--- 82.149.231.177 ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 5998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 112.390/115.560/118.597/1.886 ms

jdkaye@Attila:~$ ping http://www.amule.org

Nothing. Remember that with ...0.2 I have no DNS capabilities. With ...0.5 I do have them.

Ok, now I've change to ...0.140 and I have DNS back but no pinging. At least it seems I have a large number of ip's to play with.
Any suggestions about further experiments?
Cheers,
Jonathan

[Attila]

Originally posted by Attila

Taking your remarks to heart, which I do, then a global change seems to have internal system implications that interact with system settings causing other things (system specific) to fail. Does this make any sense at all?
thanks again,
Jonathan

No, This is total rubbish. I tested ...0.4 on the win2k box at it failed to work.
Very mysterious!
Jonathan

[Attila]

Problem solved.
Cause, some garbage collected in the router. Cure: I shut down the router and started it up again. So far all is well and things are as they were before.

[Kry]

And that's the first thing you should have done... it was clearly a router failure.

[Attila]

Originally posted by Kry
And that's the first thing you should have done... it was clearly a router failure.

Yes, Kry. Obviously you're right. *blush with shame* Better late than never. I got distracted with all these stupid articles about Sky Wars. But at least I came to the answer at the end. Age is catching up with me. *More blushes*
Jonathan