port 25 refused

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 03:37, Sanjay Arora wrote:
> O
> > > I am from India and use Ethernet based connectivity (which breaks
> > > frequently) from a cable ISP who provides a private ip address
> > > 172.16.x.x and masqed outbound connectivity.
> > 
> > That is really wierd! We have a vpn for a section of Salford Uni with an
> > IP address of 172.16.x.x and it's completely useless (IMO)
> > 
> > According to whois though, it's owned by ICANN for private purposes so
> > shouldn't be allocated to anyone!
> > 
> Well, it is...but it is being done a lot in India. There are many small
> home operation ISPs who use Linux based NAT boxes to provide
> connectivity to home users. Speed is usually comparable to dial-up 56k
> modems, though they are called BROADBAND always-on connections ;-) Guess
> the only thing broad about it is the name.
> 
> In fact MTNL & BSNL the National telcos provide a similar service using
> NAT & address rangs 10.x.x.x, throughout India. I think thatś because
> the home user broadband (64K wide) has started to compete with 64K
> leased lines which provide a live IP and cost ten or more times as
> much.Giving private address space stops the inbound services and makes
> the connection much less valuable.
> 
> Thats what I want to break out of by using a hosted UML server costing
> 5-10$/month and getting my NAT box to use a VPN getting the inbound
> packets from the hosted ip to my machine. The problem is, I dont know
> how? And the issues regarding security/performance etc. involved.
> 
> Comments anyone?
----
you are pissing into the wind

Craig