Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) For cripes sake. This all started when BC insisted that every user gets their own unique IP across the board. Everyone that disagreed with this was supposedly WRONG! Some ISPs use NAT (Network address translation) to reduce the number of IPs needed to serve a large number of clients. This means that you and perhaps dozens or hundreds of people are using the exact same IP address. The ISPs router will properly send and route the web client requests of you and others, so you don't get each other's requests, but to the outside world, it appears as one, single address. This is even done at most companies, where all the employees are behind a firewall/router, so to the outside world, it appears to be "one person" when it is in fact, a group of people. So Tontar cannot be identified strickly with an IP unless we know his ISP's setup. We do know that his IP is persistent and most ISPs assign unique IPs. How many coincidences and how much reasonable doubt is required to convict here anyway? After all, this is the court of bigfoot and we don't take kindly to hoaxers. Edited February 28, 2013 by Gigantofootecus
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 What ISPs do this then Mr. Giganto? If you are going to claim ISPs use NAT for their public customers than please back up that claim.
norseman Posted February 28, 2013 Admin Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) You two should settle this via a mud wrestling contest... Is it sexist of me to nod my head vigorously? I....P....wha? Edited February 28, 2013 by norseman
bipedalist Posted February 28, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 28, 2013 For a few seconds I thought I was reading a thread on CNet..... Let's agree to disagree and move on. Please if I wanted to be in IT I'd be making the big bucks and would be volunteering to run this site with Gigantor, hahahahaha.
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) This is not the case with U-verse because it is a Triple Play service that provides video, phone and Internet access over a single VDSL2 link. It cannot be used without the RG, whose built-in NAT services the built-in VoIP adapter and video control subsystems as well as any computers on the local network. This built-in NAT always "owns" the public IP address, and the RG does not implement a 6to4 or VPN tunnel. In common with many other NATs, the RG has a "DMZplus" feature whereby a single computer on the local network can be configured with the single public IP address that is ordinarily assigned to the RG itself. This is as close as you can get to getting the RG's NAT out of the way. But of course the NAT is still present, as it must be to service the voice and video services. A somewhat cleaner configuration would dedicate one IP address for VoIP and/or video control and a second address to the user's computer network. However, by far the cleanest alternative for those who want to avoid NATs entirely is to obtain an additional block of public IP addresses that you can assign directly to your own computers. AT&T makes these extra addresses available at prices considerably lower than Time Warner Cable, who makes them available only to business accounts, and this was what finally led me to give U-verse a try. I will have much more to say about static IP addresses on U-verse here. http://www.ka9q.net/Uverse/nat.html For cripes sake. This all started when BC insisted that every user gets their own unique IP across the board. Everyone that disagreed with this was supposedly WRONG! Some ISPs use NAT (Network address translation) to reduce the number of IPs needed to serve a large number of clients. This means that you and perhaps dozens or hundreds of people are using the exact same IP address. The ISPs router will properly send and route the web client requests of you and others, so you don't get each other's requests, but to the outside world, it appears as one, single address. This is even done at most companies, where all the employees are behind a firewall/router, so to the outside world, it appears to be "one person" when it is in fact, a group of people. So Tontar cannot be identified strickly with an IP unless we know his ISP's setup. We do know that his IP is persistent and most ISPs assign unique IPs. How many coincidences and how much reasonable doubt is required to convict here anyway? After all, this is the court of bigfoot and we don't take kindly to hoaxers. Yes this is exactly. Its even done in Colleges as well. Many Universities are set up like this. So when people ban an IP address they may be banning a whole host of people. This practice is becoming more common with ISP providers because its cheaper. As well as the whole issue with Privacy now these days to protect the End user from malicious hacking. You can't just do a Basic level hack you really need to dig deeper. I am not saying that Tontar isn't the one who did the hoax, I am pointing out that can't identify by IP address alone it is not reliable. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Begins-Residential-IPv6-FiOS-Test-107761 Edited February 28, 2013 by CathMcmillan
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 So...............moving back to topic........
roguefooter Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 An IP address and a total lack of denial- that's more than enough as far as I'm concerned. If he wasn't in on the hoax then he wouldn't have been able to state how "far off base" people's claims were. It's basically a self admission right there. 2
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Good grief - Talk about off-topic. OK, that's enough tech talk in this topic. Unless the discussion of the IP address is directly related to this topic, it is not allowed here. This is an official Mod Statement. See
adam2323 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 maybe the responsible party should jus post pictures of the stompers 1
Cotter Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) For the most part, I've said what I want to say about Tontar and this whole Elbe thing. So I'm personally not going to comment or speculate further, but rather keep a watchful eye out moving forward. I would also like to take a moment to point out that Tontar is a real human being here folks and we have to keep in mind that some 'footers aren't the most stable. I would hate to have Tontar or his family harassed or worse b/c of some faux pas he pulled within the BF community. We are upset, we were upset, I understand venting on him, but let's keep our wits and keep the expressed displeasure on the internet. That is all. Edited February 28, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove further off-topic discussion
bipedalist Posted March 1, 2013 BFF Patron Posted March 1, 2013 An IP address and a total lack of denial- that's more than enough as far as I'm concerned. If he wasn't in on the hoax then he wouldn't have been able to state how "far off base" people's claims were. It's basically a self admission right there. Amen....... goose is cooked!
roguefooter Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 I would also like to take a moment to point out that Tontar is a real human being here folks and we have to keep in mind that some 'footers aren't the most stable. I would hate to have Tontar or his family harassed or worse b/c of some faux pas he pulled within the BF community. We are upset, we were upset, I understand venting on him, but let's keep our wits and keep the expressed displeasure on the internet. Pulling a deliberate prank on people and wasting their time and resources means you've accepted the repercussions. That's life man, that's why parents teach their kids not to do things they'll be sorry for. Personally I don't see any crazy people here, but there are unstable people all over the internet- even in the skeptical community. It's no excuse for anyone to play the victim, especially when they voluntarily take the risk. 1
beerhunter Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 While we are discussing hoaxers and such, can a hoaxer be sued for the resources spent by all those researching the hoax? BTW I don't want a rehash of the IP/IT/Comcast/big-brain debate anytime soon thanks...
Martin Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Could you sue someone if you were fooled into looking for the Easter Bunny because someone put some painted eggs in a basket? Edited March 1, 2013 by Martin
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Could you sue someone if you were fooled into looking for the Easter Bunny because someone put some painted eggs in a basket? In America, yes. If you "egg" a child on then they get lost in the woods looking for the Easter bunny and die, you might be liable. Esp if your hoax lead directly to injury or death. While we are discussing hoaxers and such, can a hoaxer be sued for the resources spent by all those researching the hoax? BTW I don't want a rehash of the IP/IT/Comcast/big-brain debate anytime soon thanks... In the case of Elbe, I doubt anyone can claim damages. No fraud, no defamation, maybe gas money. Except you would have to prove you were the target of the hoax. That is after you prove it was Tontar..(sorry) by looking up his ISP using his IP address, then confirm that their services provide a unique IP for each client. Then Tontar is left to claim that he's being framed by someone masquerading as him by proxy. HE'S BEING FRAMED PEOPLE!!! Edited March 1, 2013 by Gigantofootecus
Recommended Posts