So I work at a computer store in a small town, and part of my job is setting up networks for all the local businesses.
Lately I have had the local internet provider trying to tell me that the routers we are selling to people are causing their ENTIRE (meaning the whole town) network to go down.
Is this even possible? Or is it just a sad excuse for a poor network?
(BTW, this is actually the second ISP in the town to say that. I am really starting to think its just a really sad excuse for them to make because they dont know how to fix their own damned problems).
How can ONE persons router knock out internet for a whole city?
no they are
1. trying to sell your their expensive solution
2. have a very very crazy DIY broken network
or your strange router is sending AC power into their Phone cables
Well no they arent trying to sell us anything. We dont buy stuff from the internet providers here. But we are the only computer store in town so every single person with an internet issue calls up their provider, then the provider says its not their issue so they are told to come into my store.
Well when they get here, I show the customer that there is absolutely no issue with their computer and that its an internet provider issue. Then they get pissed at me because I didnt find an issue.
Then I get the internet provider telling their customers and us that our routers are knocking out their entire network. Kinda BS.. I even had a conversation with a juniour support tech for this company and he was trying to tell me all kinds of loads of bull. Sorry buddy.. I took networking in school so I am pretty sure I know that most of what you are saying is BS.
These customers are telling me that their internet provider is telling them they need Gigabit network cards to work on their fibre optic network. Well no, you dont. You only need a megabit network card.
There is no way this is possible..
Even if there was a chance, they shouldn't be calling themselves an ISP.
As I'm sure you already know, the ISP engages the Telco to facilitate installation of the line to the client site Demarcation Point. From there a bridging medium between the ISP and client, such a modem, is used to connect to the client network equipment ... typically a firewall/routing device.
It doesn't read like you are a novice so I'm going to assume that the client equipment is sufficiently secured against the usual threats (virus, trojan, etc.) so as to ensure that DoS attacks can't occur.
That said, it may be possible that the firewall/routing device is problematic on their network. Can you provide more information as to which router you are installing at client sites?
Additionally, what is the WAN connection ... DSL, Cable, etc.?
Cheers,
I cant know what type of virus protection / security all of my customers have (sometimes I just sell and set up the router, not having touched their PC).
However the ISP uses Fibre Optics technology to connect, using DHCP.
And I dont know everything, but aren't DoS attacks sort of a thing of the past? Every ISP should be able to protect themselves against DoS attacks.
Although with the amount of viruses going around I wouldnt be suprised if they were causing some sort of security risk to the ISP.
It depends ...
Many ISP's look to protect themselves from externals attacks (Internet, their WAN) and assume their business clients (Internal, their LAN) have appropriate security measures in place.
With my clients, I facilitate the selection of the ISP and the equipment that connects the client to the ISP - the router/firewall, modem, etc.
There are two scenarios that I encounter for the WAN port of the router/firewall: 1) obtains the IP, Subnet, Gateway, DNS from the ISP DHCP server via Dynamic or Static-Dynamic (same IP all the time) or 2) full Static, where I configure the WAN port on the router/firewall accordingly. In either case, the client LAN is always NAT'ed behind the firewall.
I typically configure the firewall services to:
Only allow inbound sessions that have been initiated by an internal device
Drop ICMP, etc.
Forward determined traffic to specific devices (mail, web, dmz, etc.)
Inspect packet traffic (SPI, etc.)
When it comes to the internal devices, I will either work closely with the IT personnel to ensure that devices on the LAN are adequately protected to avoid outbound DoS (bots, zombies, etc.) or am engaged to perform all of the required duties to ensure the well-being of their network and equipment.
In either case, I am usually engaged to review their current WAN, LAN, and Wi-LAN policies, configuration, and requirements.
Still curious, what kind of routing/firewall equipment do you normally supply/configure?
Cheers,
hilaireg said:
Many ISP's look to protect themselves from externals attacks (Internet, their WAN) and assume their business clients (Internal, their LAN) have appropriate security measures in place.
With my clients, I facilitate the selection of the ISP and the equipment that connects the client to the ISP - the router/firewall, modem, etc.
There are two scenarios that I encounter for the WAN port of the router/firewall: 1) obtains the IP, Subnet, Gateway, DNS from the ISP DHCP server via Dynamic or Static-Dynamic (same IP all the time) or 2) full Static, where I configure the WAN port on the router/firewall accordingly. In either case, the client LAN is always NAT'ed behind the firewall.
I typically configure the firewall services to:
Only allow inbound sessions that have been initiated by an internal device
Drop ICMP, etc.
Forward determined traffic to specific devices (mail, web, dmz, etc.)
Inspect packet traffic (SPI, etc.)
When it comes to the internal devices, I will either work closely with the IT personnel to ensure that devices on the LAN are adequately protected to avoid outbound DoS (bots, zombies, etc.) or am engaged to perform all of the required duties to ensure the well-being of their network and equipment.
In either case, I am usually engaged to review their current WAN, LAN, and Wi-LAN policies, configuration, and requirements.
Still curious, what kind of routing/firewall equipment do you normally supply/configure?
Cheers,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The routers are TP-Link G's (we have N's as well) because all of the more expensive Linksys routers we used did not work with Fibre Optics (constantly dropped connections, support from Linksys we were basically told that fibre optics is too fast for their routers so we said "fine, we will stop selling your routers then).
Firewall is just basic windows firewall.
Tumdace said:
Firewall is just basic windows firewall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In today's hostile environments, Windows Firewall isn't sufficient protection. Proper Anti-Virus, Malware, and SPAM protection is still required. This may be an opportunity to obain additional revenue by educating clients.
Tumdace said:
The routers are TP-Link G's (we have N's as well) because all of the more expensive Linksys routers we used did not work with Fibre Optics (constantly dropped connections, support from Linksys we were basically told that fibre optics is too fast for their routers so we said "fine, we will stop selling your routers then).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect the ISP may be partly correct on this one. Did you confirm that the models you are supplying to clients meet the network specifications of the ISP?
If you haven't done so already, obtain the device (backbone equipment) specifications from the ISP and contact TP-Link to ensure that the models you are providing to clients are compatible. I've encountered many devices in my travels that are not compatible with certain types of Telco/ISP's backbone equipment. For example, I ran into a situation with an ISP that provided 10 Mbps WAN for a client where I had to replace their inexpensive router/firewall with a Cisco PIX - chose the PIX since the ISP confirmed as compatible with their equipment.
I assume that you have been updating the firmware to the TP-Link devices to the appropriate level - one that ensures compatibility to the ISP network (latest is not always equal to greatest). Another point to keep in mind is that inexpensive routers/firewall devices can often be problematic - ports prone to failure at high traffic load, insufficient backplane memory, processor bottleneck, poor firewall feature implementations, etc.
Good luck,
hilaireg said:
In today's hostile environments, Windows Firewall isn't sufficient protection. Proper Anti-Virus, Malware, and SPAM protection is still required. This may be an opportunity to obain additional revenue by educating clients.
I suspect the ISP may be partly correct on this one. Did you confirm that the models you are supplying to clients meet the network specifications of the ISP?
If you haven't done so already, obtain the device (backbone equipment) specifications from the ISP and contact TP-Link to ensure that the models you are providing to clients are compatible. I've encountered many devices in my travels that are not compatible with certain types of Telco/ISP's backbone equipment. For example, I ran into a situation with an ISP that provided 10 Mbps WAN for a client where I had to replace their inexpensive router/firewall with a Cisco PIX - chose the PIX since the ISP confirmed as compatible with their equipment.
I assume that you have been updating the firmware to the TP-Link devices to the appropriate level - one that ensures compatibility to the ISP network (latest is not always equal to greatest). Another point to keep in mind is that inexpensive routers/firewall devices can often be problematic - ports prone to failure at high traffic load, insufficient backplane memory, processor bottleneck, poor firewall feature implementations, etc.
Good luck,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trust me I educate my clients on anti virus programs and added security. The problem is that I live in a rural small town, and everyone is too cheap to put a little bit more money into their computers, so they always go with Windows firewall and a free anti virus.
BTW its less about clients and more about just random customers.
I am not like a systems integrator, I just work at a computer store.
How are you configuring the routers in general? DHCP that is provided from their ISP? or are you statically assigning an address? I could see issues if you were statically assigning because of ISP router IP conflicts, but otherwise I can't think of anything that would specifically cause an entire network to go down. In my own personal experience, this would warrant a house call to check out how things are set up and perhaps fluking the line to see where the line goes to and the end destination if possible.
Related
Copied from http://win7vista.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=54d50a392a858b2105fcc3987bb2b422&topic=19481.0 Here
The Internet will run out of Internet addresses in about 1 year's time, we were told today by John Curran, President and CEO of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). The same thing was also stated recently by Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist.
http://twitter.com/IPv4Countdown less than a year to go before IPv4 addresses run out...
The main reason for the concern? There's an explosion of data about to happen to the Web - thanks largely to sensor data, smart grids, RFID and other Internet of Things data. Other reasons include the increase in mobile devices connecting to the Internet and the annual growth in user-generated content on the Web.
Why a New Internet Protocol is Needed
Currently the Web largely uses IPv4, Internet Protocol version 4. Each IPv4 address is limited to a 32-bit number, which means there are a maximum of just over 4 billion unique addresses. IPv6 is the next generation Internet Protocol and uses a 128-bit address, so it supports a vastly larger number of unique addresses. Enough, in fact, to give every person on the planet over 4 billion addresses!
John Curran from ARIN, the non-profit responsible for managing the distribution of Internet addresses in the North American region, told ReadWriteWeb that of the approximately 4 billion IPv4 addresses available, all but 6% have already been allocated. Curran expects the final 6% to be allocated over the coming year.
This is largely an issue that ISP (Internet Service Providers) and telecoms carriers need to deal with. However content service providers, including large-scale Internet companies like Google and Facebook, also need to ensure that the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 takes place. Curran explained that a content company like Google (for example its YouTube operation) will need to work with its ISP to transport the content via IPv6 as well as IPv4.
This transition is happening "slowly," says Curran. But he warns that "deployment is where we're behind."
Google, Facebook & Others Making Good Progress
John Curran told us that large carriers like Verizon and Comcast have announced trial IPv6 activity. Curran also noted that new Internet of Things initiatives that use sensor networks, power grids, RFID and similar technologies, are being directed to use IPv6 and not IPv4.
There is also solid support from the big Internet companies. Curran said that Google has already put the majority of its services onto IPv6. Declaring its support for IPv6 on a special webpage, Google states that "IPv6 is essential to the continued health and openness of the Internet [and] will enable innovation and allow the Internet's continued growth."
In June, Google held a Google IPv6 Implementors Conference. At that event, Facebook announced that it had begun to use IPv6.
In his opening remarks to the conference, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf urges ISPs to move to IPv6, so that a "black market" for Internet addresses won't occur.
Another Y2K?
Critics view some of the push for IPv6 as Chicken Little 'the sky is falling' talk. Commented @ajbraun, a self-described technology leader at Sony Ericsson, via Twitter: "We should call this "IPv6: Y2K II." An obvious issue for 10 years, we will panic at the end and finally much ado about nothing."
Others see a technology called NAT (Network Address Translation) as a solution - it maps multiple addresses to a single IP address, thus reducing the amount of unique IP addresses required. However this is at best a temporary solution. Google argued back in 2008 that NAT and similar technologies "complicate the Internet's architecture, pose barriers to the development of new applications, and run contrary to network openness principles."
Whether or not there is Y2K-style fear mongering, the bottom line is that IPv6 is a much larger platform for the coming Internet of Things. So one way or another, the move will have to be made.
As of 2 hours ago writing this there is 233,000,000 IP addresses left
So what your saying is, the internet is gonna run out if we don't upgrade to the newer version?
The internet is dead??
NO! IT CAN'T! It was just getting useful..... Now all the sudden it's leaving us!
It's D000m day, the world is ending 2012 came too early. I can't survive in an world without internet
I need to cry....
so lets kick every stupid person off the internet. i think it could work.
and to that affect i must quote one of the best songs in existence:
you need a permit to walk around downtown, you need a license to dance. Life'll kill ya.
PurpleSmurfLlama said:
I need to cry....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not exactly we just need to upgrade a bunch of the networks to ipv6. Also the # of ip's left in the pool can be changed, they will Start to open up the last pools and lease the ips
Why Google you no like college students?
Hmmm this probably raises a good point, it's a bit hard to implement something like 802.1x though on a streamer device (where authentication is required per login of network prior to you having the ability to control the device).
I don't see this coming for awhile to be honest unless someone manages to hack it in - I just can't see Google releasing the ability to cache 802.1x network credential sets unfortunately due to the security implications.
Friend of mine had to buy his own router to plug in to the colleges ethernet ports in the dorm. Solved a variety of issues they were having.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
fchowd0696 said:
Why Google you no like college students?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beyond the lack of keyboard/interface, large networks in general fear multicast and UPnP because they have potential to easily clog the network.
Also remember that Chromecast in its current state has little security - it's designed for use within a trusted environment.
You probably don't want to be in the middle of Twilight with your girlfriend and suddenly your Chromecast switches over to SpongeBob SquarePants because someone else in the dorm decided BobsChromecast obviously wants to show SpongeBob...
Having your own router and local network will isolate your Chromecast to just your little piece of the campus network, though double-NAT might be an issue, and you should check with campus policy on use of personal WiFi router/AP hardware.
I've got a similar problem. I use a studentnet, were I can either plug in directly into the wall and log in once every day or setup a router with a PPTP-connection to automatically log into the student-network. I've got the latter set up and it works like a charm.
Thankfully I had a rootable CC so I could set it to use my ISP's DNS but I would love if it if I were able to use a different DNS (aka Unlocator/Unblock) to enjoy the US-version of Netflix, but every time I change the DNS-servers my internetconnection dies.
Is there any way to actually do fix my problem? I know this is more of a network-question than a CC-one, but CC is included in the problem
I use a Netgear WNR3500LV2 as my router.
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
ninepoint said:
I've got a similar problem. I use a studentnet, were I can either plug in directly into the wall and log in once every day or setup a router with a PPTP-connection to automatically log into the student-network. I've got the latter set up and it works like a charm.
Thankfully I had a rootable CC so I could set it to use my ISP's DNS but I would love if it if I were able to use a different DNS (aka Unlocator/Unblock) to enjoy the US-version of Netflix, but every time I change the DNS-servers my internetconnection dies.
Is there any way to actually do fix my problem? I know this is more of a network-question than a CC-one, but CC is included in the problem
I use a Netgear WNR3500LV2 as my router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First question is whether you can use a different DNS at all (or whether your ISP is blocking somehow).
Try doing a DNS lookup from another server on your phone/tablet via Ping & DNS or another app that lets you do that.
If that's successful, then it might work - go to the Eureka-ROM web panel at http://Chromecast_IP_addresss/ and turn off DHCP-supplied DNS, Apply, then select another DNS.
You will also need to force your phone/tablet to use the same DNS - otherwise your phone/tablet may be making requests from Mars, while Chromecast tries to retrieve stuff from Venus.
So I got a chromecast for my birthday and was super excited to use it but it wouldnt connect to the wifi for my apartment complex. I called the isp and they block all cc, apple tv, roku ect. I spoofed the mac adress to my tablet to try to gain acees but it wouldn't let my tablet connect. Therefore I think it must be blocked by mac adress? Anyway I have a model h2g2 42 and would like to find a way to connect my device to the internet and use my new toy. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
Jared
theatomizer90 said:
So I got a chromecast for my birthday and was super excited to use it but it wouldnt connect to the wifi for my apartment complex. I called the isp and they block all cc, apple tv, roku ect. I spoofed the mac adress to my tablet to try to gain acees but it wouldn't let my tablet connect. Therefore I think it must be blocked by mac adress? Anyway I have a model h2g2 42 and would like to find a way to connect my device to the internet and use my new toy. Any help is appreciated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do they know what device has what MAC? The only thing I can think of is they're doing some blanket blocking by vendor ID (which is part of the MAC)
Chromecast's vendor is Azurewave, so if they're blanket blocking devices that use Azurewave hardware, that's a LOT of devices.
More likely they're tracking and blocking unknown MAC addresses.
They could also be blocking streaming traffic, but Chromecast should at least be able to reach the Internet.
Well one way to find out if it is Mac Address....
Clone the CCast MAC Address on your computer and see if it can connect.
I can understand them blocking the protocols needed to discover such devices but I can't see them blocking Mac Addresses cause that means well over a million MAC addresses to block.
Can I ask whats your location what country??
Asphyx said:
Well one way to find out if it is Mac Address....
Clone the CCast MAC Address on your computer and see if it can connect.
I can understand them blocking the protocols needed to discover such devices but I can't see them blocking Mac Addresses cause that means well over a million MAC addresses to block.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@theatomizer90 said they spoofed the CCast MAC to their tablet and their tablet wouldn't connect.
So I'm guessing they're doing something like hotels do and somehow tracking MACs, individually adding them to their Allow list.
What if you call the ISP and just don't tell them the device you're connecting is a media player? How would they handle it if you just had a second tablet that you want to connect?
bhiga said:
@theatomizer90 said they spoofed the CCast MAC to their tablet and their tablet wouldn't connect.
So I'm guessing they're doing something like hotels do and somehow tracking MACs, individually adding them to their Allow list.
What if you call the ISP and just don't tell them the device you're connecting is a media player? How would they handle it if you just had a second tablet that you want to connect?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not convinced spoofing it on a Tablet would be as solid as doing it on a PC....
Especially if the PC is wired.
Truth is I would tell the ISP to GFT and stop blocking things I pay them to provide.
I bet there is not a single mention of blocked media devices in the contract which means they are essentially in breach for not providing Internet access.
Asphyx said:
I'm not convinced spoofing it on a Tablet would be as solid as doing it on a PC....
Especially if the PC is wired.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the PC is wired, it wouldn't connect to the building wireless...
but that brings up a good point - @theatomizer90 is there a wired Internet connection in your flat/whatever?
If so, you could just connect your own router and connect all your devices to that... The building's network wouldn't know about any of your individual devices unless it's very high end. It's the same as I do in hotels.
It wouldn't help if they're doing packet/traffic filtering though... again, same as hotels...
No hard line... such a bummer. I went and complained to the manager but I doubt anything will come of it.
Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk
Krisshp said:
Can I ask whats your location what country??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry didnt see that. USA idaho. I am in an apartment complex that kicked them because they only have one router for the whole complex granted it is a beast it can handle 120+ connections. But the whole apple tv roku and chromecast added enough devices to that connection that it just overloaded the router.
theatomizer90 said:
Sorry didnt see that. USA idaho. I am in an apartment complex that kicked them because they only have one router for the whole complex granted it is a beast it can handle 120+ connections. But the whole apple tv roku and chromecast added enough devices to that connection that it just overloaded the router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get to play with enterprise-class routers from time to time and even they have limits. It depends on both the AP hardware (usually there is a maximum number of associated stations before things start going round-robin) and the router hardware itself as the overall traffic load increases.
Some folks in your situation (not specifically with Chromecast, but general connectivity challenges) have success using cantennas to use more-distant wireless, rather than their limited local infrastructure, but it really depends on the individual situation.
theatomizer90 said:
Sorry didnt see that. USA idaho. I am in an apartment complex that kicked them because they only have one router for the whole complex granted it is a beast it can handle 120+ connections. But the whole apple tv roku and chromecast added enough devices to that connection that it just overloaded the router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well one solution that would work is to get yourself a travel router...
(An example not a recommendation as I have not used it do some research before you pick one) http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-WL-330N3G-Wireless-N-Mobile-Router/dp/B004OT05LC
The easiest thing to do would be to spoof a wireless access point, there is all kinds of free software to do it. Connect tablet to Wi-Fi. Spoof a wireless ap. Connect cc to spoofed Wi-Fi.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Hey all,
I was wondering if there was any tether bypass method for Windows Phone users on T-Mobile so that tethering won't count towards your hotspot usage. Preferably one that works with 8.1.
TetherX is an app that runs a proxy server on your phone, which is a pretty good way to handle web browsing, email, and other proxy-aware things while still having the phone show all the traffic as coming from itself, not from another machine. There's also wired tethering, which on my ATIV S is possible (though device-specific hacks, sadly) and does not show up as tethered data... but my ATIV S can't use the normal Internet Sharing feature anyhow (it always says there's no data connection to share, which is a blatant lie but I've talked to MS, TMo, Samsung, and even the original carrier Telus and none of them know how to fix it).
GoodDayToDie said:
TetherX is an app that runs a proxy server on your phone, which is a pretty good way to handle web browsing, email, and other proxy-aware things while still having the phone show all the traffic as coming from itself, not from another machine. There's also wired tethering, which on my ATIV S is possible (though device-specific hacks, sadly) and does not show up as tethered data... but my ATIV S can't use the normal Internet Sharing feature anyhow (it always says there's no data connection to share, which is a blatant lie but I've talked to MS, TMo, Samsung, and even the original carrier Telus and none of them know how to fix it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem with Tether X is that I think you can only use a browser with the connection. For example, how would I get it to work with the Netflix app on Windows 8, or connect my game console to it? I'm not sure wired tethering works with my device (Lumia 925). And even then, I run into the same problem of not being able to connect more devices.
Update:
So oddly enough it seems I can go past the tethering limit but only for certain tasks. I can browse the web for the most part and even stream youtube video, using the Fiddler trick posted on XDA. But anything requiring https is a no-go. Can't check email, login to certain websites, etc. PSN doesn't work either. This is quite frustrating, ugh. Not sure why https traffic is being blocked.......
TetherX, as I said, should work on anything that is proxy-aware. In practice, that's a surprisingly broad range of software: email and IM clients will generally either respect the system proxy settings or have their own, most well-written third-party software that is targeted at Windows specifically will try to use the system proxy, and there are a non-zero number of games which are also proxy-aware (it is a sad fact of the universe that, in so far as polished quality is concerned, virtually no games are "well-written" but a few of them do just rely on the Windows network connections without trying to get fancy).
Now, with all that said, there's a "should" at the start, there. I don't personally use TetherX. It's possible that it only handles HTTP and HTTPS, or some similarly stupid limitations. It *SHOULD* be implemented as a SOCKS proxy, but it might just be a stupid HTTP proxy ("stupid" here meaning that all it does is forward HTTP requests at the application layer, and is not aware of any other form of TCP traffic). HTTP proxies are arguably easier to write, but SOCKS isn't *terribly* complex and it is by far the superior choice for the purpose.
As an addendum: Whether or not TetherX works, you might want to try Bluetooth Proxy. It is free and uses SOCKS. It's a little complex to set up - BT can be used for a network connection but most people never do, so it's a bit confusing - but it should work if TetherX isn't working, and it doesn't cost anything!
GoodDayToDie said:
TetherX, as I said, should work on anything that is proxy-aware. In practice, that's a surprisingly broad range of software: email and IM clients will generally either respect the system proxy settings or have their own, most well-written third-party software that is targeted at Windows specifically will try to use the system proxy, and there are a non-zero number of games which are also proxy-aware (it is a sad fact of the universe that, in so far as polished quality is concerned, virtually no games are "well-written" but a few of them do just rely on the Windows network connections without trying to get fancy).
Now, with all that said, there's a "should" at the start, there. I don't personally use TetherX. It's possible that it only handles HTTP and HTTPS, or some similarly stupid limitations. It *SHOULD* be implemented as a SOCKS proxy, but it might just be a stupid HTTP proxy ("stupid" here meaning that all it does is forward HTTP requests at the application layer, and is not aware of any other form of TCP traffic). HTTP proxies are arguably easier to write, but SOCKS isn't *terribly* complex and it is by far the superior choice for the purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct, I was able to use Tether-X to hook up my computer and my PS3. There are some caveats here that make it pretty cumbersome however:
1) Speeds seem slow
2) Latency was very high (700+ ping to closest ST server, unsuitable for multiplayer gaming)
3) Different proxy server address every time you start the app (That means retyping proxy server address every single time I want to hook up my devices to it)
Slow speeds may been because of the network, but the super high latency is perplexing. Direct internet sharing I get around ~100 ms ping, but on Tether X it increases it significantly. Any idea what that's all about?
GoodDayToDie said:
As an addendum: Whether or not TetherX works, you might want to try Bluetooth Proxy. It is free and uses SOCKS. It's a little complex to set up - BT can be used for a network connection but most people never do, so it's a bit confusing - but it should work if TetherX isn't working, and it doesn't cost anything!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is this limited by the speed of the Bluetooth protocol? And can you connect additional devices using this method?
Ok, so I figured out what was causing the high latency with Tether-X. Unfortunately PSN is still blocked when proxying through Tether X. It's able to access the internet through the PS3, but not PSN. What I did was connect to the adhoc network on my computer, and the supply the Tether X proxy and port when setting up the network (is there anything else I should be doing?). I keep getting weird DNS errors.
So close, yet so far....
Yes, Bluetooth networking is limited to the speed of BT (which is actually decent, though not amazing). No knowledge of connecting multiple devices, but it may be possible directly, and if not you could connect the others to a PC's WiFi and use Internet Connection Sharing with the BT interface as the uplink.
I would *expect* DNS to get proxied correctly, but I know little about how either TetherX or the PS3 work. Sorry. Short of suggesting something like manually configuring a DNS server (Google runs a few, for example), I don't know what to suggest.
Well, aside from getting a real Internet connection. They don't cost *that* much, don't come with usage limits in most cases, and are generally both more stable and lower latency than phone connections (these being two of the main needs for gaming).
maybe a stupid q , but on settings you have the button internet sharing , is that still on your phone ?
or is it greyed out ?
maybe flash another rom ? (not a bloated one from T-Mobile)
T-Mobile US provides a limited amount of free tethering with their service, but it sounds like the OP is trying to get past that "limited" part (overall data service is unlimited). The official Internet Sharing feature uses your (limited) tethering allowance.
On Android there seems to be many ways to get around this, but not on Windows Phone . Tether-X almost works, but I can't get devices like game consoles to connect.
I already use Chromecast at home and know how this little piece of awesomeness work, what I need is to use it inside my work LAN, so here is the problem: We have 802.1X auth to our main SSID and a Web-based auth page to connect guest users. We use Cisco WLAN devices to do so along with Active Directory and etc. I also have other 2 ssid's inside my Cisco AP's despite of being said that I should use only 3 SSID's on a 2,4GHz AP and as Chromecast needs multicast we decided to drop the possibility to use Cisco to make this netowrk, it would be very complicated to do a simple job.
So after I have been through all of those options we decided to buy and use an simple Access Point (ill be using a DD-WRT enabled router to do so) to make the network for the CC's.
Here is where things got a little bit more complicated, I can use chromecast without a problem if I use it inside this newly created network, but I still need to control it from inside my work network. I have separated my VLANs more and less in this aspect:
0 for fixed IP's 90 for chromecast devices 100 for workstation 200 for servers All of the specified VLAN communicate to each other without a problem
The real purpose is to center some dashboards in a Chrome Browser in a Windows VM and show them in 10 different TV's in our environment (it is a mine, so it is very large territorial company).
But the key is that I don't want the workstations to be able to cast to the chromecast, in fact I'll be using only one virtual machine to control all of the Chromecasts, do you guys have any idea how can I do that?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Chromecast/comments/35v3le/connect_chromecast_to_specific_vlan_inside_my/
To block other clients on the network from seeing Chromecast you'll have to block its discovery protocol(s). It uses mDNS mainly now. You'll should be able to see it via Bonjour Browser or similar.