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
Related
I searched the forums but found nothing so far regarding this subject.
AT&T is rolling out a new system as of February 1st which will capture the MAC address of devices. The purpose of this system is to keep people from illegally tethering their devices with a PC in order to use the data service. AT&T is also looking to lock customers into specific data plans depending on the type of device a person has. At this time AT&T cannot tell what type of device a person has until this new system is in place.
Does anyone know of a program which can mask or hide the MAC address for the Kaiser/Tilt/etc?
Any help would be appreciated
Keith
newbie with a Tilt
What proof do you have of this? I have never heard of it.
I would be curious as to how this will work. When tethered, your phone is, in essence, a router, and MAC addresses do not pass through a router. When a router passes traffic through it, it rewrites the data packets with its own MAC address so it can identify them coming back.
Unless I'm missing something...
Not sure.... but at least in Windows XP mac addys can be easily spoofed via a registry edit. You have me curious so I'm looking into it.
Initial research indicates MAC addys are not held in the clear. That makes spoofing more difficult than a simple registry edit. I'm open to suggestions.
All the info are completely non-sense.
1. MAC address has nothing to do w/ tethering.
2. ATT does not (and cannot) need MAC to figure out what device is using the network. They can use IMEI and I believe they are using it already.
jackleung said:
All the info are completely non-sense.
1. MAC address has nothing to do w/ tethering.
2. ATT does not (and cannot) need MAC to figure out what device is using the network. They can use IMEI and I believe they are using it already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Purely academic inquiry....
Why do you say they cannot read the MAC addy?
They could probably get your IP address using ARP, but more than likely just use your device's IMEI number
jackleung said:
All the info are completely non-sense.
1. MAC address has nothing to do w/ tethering.
2. ATT does not (and cannot) need MAC to figure out what device is using the network. They can use IMEI and I believe they are using it already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of COURSE they're using your IMEI. That's how they know that your phone is on their network. That has nothing to do with what the OP was posting about.
MAC addresses have everything to do with tethering because if you had any clue about the OSI model, you would know that Layer 1 is the physical layer and Layer 2 is the data-link layer. That is where the MAC addresses are. Layer 3 is the network layer, which is where the IP addresses live.
Now, since you're transmitting TCP/IP packets across AT&T's network, you're using all 7 layers, but more importantly, you are definitely using MAC and IP addresses (layers 2 and 3).
So yes, it is important, but HOW important has yet to be determined. I doubt AT&T has the ability to track that, but I'm waiting for proof from the OP.
Well I was advised by a friend who works at the corporate headquarters in GA.
AT&T is using IMEI and the MAC address as of February. They will also be rolling out a new unlimited data plan for $30/month. Currently I have the $20 business unlimited data plan which will be no more. Depending on the type of data plan you have (PDA/Business/Smartphone) and device, your internet may be inturrupted due to the new system. For example my current $20 unlimited business2mobile data plan will no longer work on my Tilt once the new system is in place. At that point I will need to call AT&T to upgrade my data package to the new $30/month plan since older unlimited data packages will be discontinued and/or incompatible with my Tilt. From what I was told, my current data plan will not be allowed on the Tilt as it will be restricted by the IMEI of the device. Unlimited data family plans (all phones under your plan) will also be offered seperate from txt msging packages. Not sure of the pricing for the Unlimited Family data plan.
All these restrictions on the supposed "Unlimited" data plans is bull crap. If I'm paying for "unlimited" data it should not matter whether I am tethering or not, the TOS can eat me.
Sorry if I rambled, just trying to clarify the reason I started this thread.
Thanks
Lidberg said:
MAC addresses have everything to do with tethering because if you had any clue about the OSI model, you would know that Layer 1 is the physical layer and Layer 2 is the data-link layer. That is where the MAC addresses are. Layer 3 is the network layer, which is where the IP addresses live.
Now, since you're transmitting TCP/IP packets across AT&T's network, you're using all 7 layers, but more importantly, you are definitely using MAC and IP addresses (layers 2 and 3).
So yes, it is important, but HOW important has yet to be determined. I doubt AT&T has the ability to track that, but I'm waiting for proof from the OP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am working in the networking field and of course I do understand what OSI or datalink layer is about.
But if you really read the question of thread, it is asking tethering which I will assume the poster asking about if ATT able to figure out the MAC address of PC which is sharing the internet behind our Tilt. Then the answer is no, because MAC address is the physical address of next hub. From ATT network point of view, they will found Tilt mac address but not our PC. Our Tilt is like our home router, ISP can only sees it's MAC address but not the the MAC address of the internal network. That's why I said MAC address has nothing to do w/ tethering analysis.
jackleung said:
I am working in the networking field and of course I do understand what OSI or datalink layer is about.
But if you really read the question of thread, it is asking tethering which I will assume the poster asking about if ATT able to figure out the MAC address of PC which is sharing the internet behind our Tilt. Then the answer is no, because MAC address is the physical address of next hub. From ATT network point of view, they will found Tilt mac address but not our PC. Our Tilt is like our home router, ISP can only sees it's MAC address but not the the MAC address of the internal network. That's why I said MAC address has nothing to do w/ tethering analysis.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps I was reading too much into the OP's question. I was thinking the intention was to spoof the MAC addy presented to ATT to perhaps subvert restrictions on the data network. If the IMEA needs to be spoofed as well, then <shrug> I dunno.
I have the 19.99 media net max plan with 200 text messages and unlimited data. are they getting rid of that plan?
They have already, look:
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/services/services-list.jsp?LOSGId=4002301919
Keep it. Don't change it at all.
Since I already had this plan, they cant force me to change it..
They can force us to change our data plans because of the type of phone we have. They will tell use the data plan we currently have is no longer compatible with the Tilt. Sucks I know.
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.
I'm new to the world of AT&T smartphones (having owned an LG Shine now for a few years) and just ordered my Aria a few days ago. It's slated to arrive tomorrow.
In the meantime, I've been taking peeks at the root/patch development process that's going on over in the dev forum. And the developer who's spearheading that effort, has stated that his first attempt strips out ALL of the AT&T bloatware, including the AT&T Hotspot app.
I didn't think it was appropriate to ask the newbie question over there, so instead I've come here: what exactly IS the AT&T Hotspot app? Is it something that's vital to the functioning of wi-fi on the device? Or is it just something that helps you connect to AT&T's proprietary, public wi-fi networks?
Thanks,
Corporate Dog
There are 1000's of wifi hotspots that AT&T provides in popular businesses. The Hot Spot app will tell you where to find them in your local area. Mcdonalds, Starbucks, Barnes and Noble are a few of the included spots when I search my local area.
its doesn't use your location and forces you to type in your city it is much less effort to just go to google maps on the phone and type in hotspot
Basically, here's poor man's hostpot program: Go to Google Maps and create layers that would contain Starbucks, B&N, and McDonald's stores. Voila!
The jury is out, however, on McDonalds. I haven't been able to establish a connection at any single I tried around NYC. Either there's no ATTWIFI at all, or the connection is established but no traffic goes thru.
McDonalds HotSpot
Most of the ones here in Chicago work but first you need to visit there splash page agree to the terms and donate your extra email address
Besides being able to find hotspot locations via the application, the AT&T Hotspot actually runs as a service (WispService) automatically if you have it installed. If you try to get onto one of the AT&T WiFi networks, it will generally prompt you via notification (in the top left corner of your screen) validating your access to the hotspot. This would replace the agree to terms checkbox via the startup webpage if you didn't have the service running. The Hotspot app may also allow you to get onto AT&T customer only hotspots. The service I found only worked on stock-based ROM's and not Cyanogen.
I've been trying to access the Captivate in-bound over 3G. I set up the DynDNS and SwiftFTP and while setting up DynDNS received a warning that I was behind a proxy. Further reading tells me that if my data stream is proxified then I cannot directly access the phone via in-bound connections. My question is regarding APN settings. Can a new APN be created that doesn't use a proxy or is that something set in stone that allows the device to access the internet?
Thanks.
You are at the mercy of AT&T - they are handing out your IP address and routing your traffic.
My guess is that even a different APN won't help - with millions of smartphones their IP address space is limited. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not blocking all inbound SYN conncections. If nothing else they protect all the iPhone jailbreakers that installed SSH but didn't change their passwords.
alphadog00 said:
You are at the mercy of AT&T - they are handing out your IP address and routing your traffic.
My guess is that even a different APN won't help - with millions of smartphones their IP address space is limited. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not blocking all inbound SYN conncections. If nothing else they protect all the iPhone jailbreakers that installed SSH but didn't change their passwords.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said. Damn AT&T.
I'm thinking I may grab a Vibrant and flash JG8.. Then, I get hspda, Eugenes Kernels, and CM when Wes gets it running on Vibrant.
I love the Captivate.. Im just a little less than stirred by the ROM development..
Thanks for the reply.
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.