A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Vista & double NAT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 4th 07, 01:29 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
kráftéé
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,765
Default Vista & double NAT

Well I bit the bullet & started to play with Vista today, only to
find, unlike all the XP machines it will not access the internet from
behind my Firebox, nslookup fails with my routers IP port 53 & then
times out. By connecting it direct to my router it's connecting.

So putting it as simple as I can I have a router where I have turned
off DHCP & put an IP into the DMZ, that IP is the external IP of my
Firebox. As said before I cannot access the web from behind the
Firebox (DNS is being blocked) but if & take the Firebox out of the
equation it can, although all the other PCs are perfectly happy
running via the Firebox.

A clue please (well it makes a change from the ongoing PN saga & I may
just learn something useful)


  #2  
Old March 4th 07, 09:38 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Flyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Vista & double NAT


"kraftee" wrote in message
...
Well I bit the bullet & started to play with Vista today, only to find,
unlike all the XP machines it will not access the internet from behind my
Firebox, nslookup fails with my routers IP port 53 & then times out. By
connecting it direct to my router it's connecting.

So putting it as simple as I can I have a router where I have turned off
DHCP & put an IP into the DMZ, that IP is the external IP of my Firebox.
As said before I cannot access the web from behind the Firebox (DNS is
being blocked) but if & take the Firebox out of the equation it can,
although all the other PCs are perfectly happy running via the Firebox.

A clue please (well it makes a change from the ongoing PN saga & I may
just learn something useful)



you might try microsoft.public.windows.vista.security for a more informed
answer.

P.


  #3  
Old March 4th 07, 11:31 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Vista & double NAT

Can't answer your actual question, I'm afraid, but if your previous system
wasn't broke, why fix it?

I haven't even moved from W2k to XP as the former does everything I need it
to do, while the latter put my CPU into 100% even after I'd applied the fix
that was supposed to cure that ... and I'm not keen on the Fisher Price look
either.

There are many reasons not to upgrade to Vista, and very few to do so, as
explained here ...

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html

"kraftee" wrote in message
...
Well I bit the bullet & started to play with Vista today, only to
find ...



  #4  
Old March 4th 07, 12:53 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
kráftéé
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,765
Default Vista & double NAT

Java Jive wrote:
Can't answer your actual question, I'm afraid, but if your previous
system wasn't broke, why fix it?

I haven't even moved from W2k to XP as the former does everything I
need it to do, while the latter put my CPU into 100% even after I'd
applied the fix that was supposed to cure that ... and I'm not keen
on the Fisher Price look either.

There are many reasons not to upgrade to Vista, and very few to do
so, as explained here ...

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html

"kraftee" wrote in message
...
Well I bit the bullet & started to play with Vista today, only to
find ...


I know exactly what you mean, but seeing as I have a bit of time on my
hands (2-3 weeks recuperation after an op) I'd thought I'd have a play
on a spare machine (well one I've not got a great use for at the
moment). After looking at the newsgroup I have been pointed to (as
well as my Live 5.1 soundcard, the one which Creative said would never
be outmoded as all they would have to do is upgrade the firmware,
isn't supported anymore) I think I may as well revert as everybody &
their dog, cat, mother, sister etc appear to be having problems with
one aspect of networking or another & there aren't any answers
forthcoming, yet. Another reason is the hit on resources (yes I know
I was told) just sitting there with most of the dross removed is still
taking 25% out of 2GB ram.. I've even reinstalled it (remembering some
of the problems I had in the early days of XP) & that didn't solve it
(can't activate it as I can't get on line to do so).

Oh well I'll play for a few more hours but I think the general
consensus is correct (sometimes they are wrong you know)


  #5  
Old March 4th 07, 01:50 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
kráftéé
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,765
Default Vista & double NAT

J Clavox wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:31:54 -0000, "Java Jive"
wrote:


I haven't even moved from W2k to XP as the former does everything
I need it to do,

I suppose there are still people in the country who say the tin bath
in front of the fire and an outside loo does everything they need it
to do but some of us like to move with the times .


But as I'm finding out.....there is moving with the times or just
getting off the train.

Vista at the moment (for me & aparently quite a large number of other
attempted users) is like getting off the train. It stops you doing
what you can easily do with XP & the wonderful 90 day free tech
support is only after registration & with so many people being unable
to get on line/their networks working is totally useless.

There is no reason why Vista shouldn't be able to be 'slotted in' into
a network in place of an XP machine, configured the same way as the XP
machine & work. As it stands it doesn't, how do you think the
coperations are going to think when they find it doesn't work...that's
one chunk of the market gone straight away (remember there are still a
significant number of businesses out there who are still runing 98SE
because it works)

Just because something is new, more complicated & has got pretty
themes doesn't make it better or a step forward. The old maxim, the
more complicated the more there is to go wrong does spring to mind.


  #6  
Old March 4th 07, 02:07 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,472
Default Vista & double NAT

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:35:05 UTC, J Clavox wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:31:54 -0000, "Java Jive" wrote:
I haven't even moved from W2k to XP as the former does everything I need it
to do,

I suppose there are still people in the country who say the tin bath
in front of the fire and an outside loo does everything they need it
to do but some of us like to move with the times .


Try playing perfectly legal DVDs on Vista.

Your attitudes haven't kept pace, anyway.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.voipinside.net
  #7  
Old March 4th 07, 04:29 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Vista & double NAT

"J Clavox" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:31:54 -0000, "Java Jive" wrote:

I suppose there are still people in the country who say the tin bath
in front of the fire


Been there done that. Except that it wasn't the luxury of being in front of
the fire, it was outside the back door in the frosts of winter with the
water freezing as it overflowed onto the ground. If I made the water so hot
that I could only just ease myself into it, and had a spare bucket to top-up
with, I reckoned I had about 10-15 minutes to complete my bath before I
started to get really cold.

But to return to the point, going with the latest fashion just because it's
the latest fashion is not the same thing as moving with the times ...

Fashion is just a way of parting the gullible from their money, but it also
has quite damaging side-effects. So many stores are competing for the same
business that the resulting low profit margins results in them not keeping
meaningful amounts of stock, so perfectly good products become useless
because you can't maintain them, and people like myself who take trousers
with 36" inside leg can't clothe ourselves any more (so we couldn't actually
wear the latest fashion even if we wanted to).

Is there a Sinclair C5 in your garage by any chance? Do you have a Betamax
VCR, a quadrophonic audio system from the 70s, or a multitrack tape-recorder
none of which you can obtain media for? How many things around you now did
you first see on historically on Tomorrow's World? How many things featured
on Tomorrow's World can you buy in the shops now?

Some of us feel that we already spend too much of our lives p*ssing about
with technology that isn't fully operational yet, that it gets in the way of
real life. Why give oneself a headache about something that you don't
actually *need*?!

At best, Vista, like every other fashion of Windows, will be here today and
gone to-morrow. At worst, it might just prove to be such a damp squib that
Microsoft burns their fingers badly, which I rather hope. For example,
whatever happened to processor IDs?

I only upgrade when I need to, and I usually manage to miss out at least
every other re-incarnation of Windows, which at least halves the time
wasted. I'm also trying to find a Linux that I can live with ...

At the end of the day, I'd rather spend my time doing something useful with
my PC, rather than it taking up more of my time for its own sake, as it does
far too much already.


  #8  
Old March 4th 07, 04:42 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Frazer Jolly Goodfellow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Vista & double NAT

"Java Jive" wrote in
:

Been there done that. Except that it wasn't the luxury of being
in front of the fire, it was outside the back door in the frosts
of winter with the water freezing as it overflowed onto the
ground. If I made the water so hot that I could only just ease
myself into it, and had a spare bucket to top-up with, I
reckoned I had about 10-15 minutes to complete my bath before I
started to get really cold.


Back door! We used to *dream* of having a back door.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half
an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work
twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for
permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our
mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing
Hallelujah.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they
won't believe you.
  #9  
Old March 4th 07, 07:54 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Peter Crosland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Vista & double NAT

I know exactly what you mean, but seeing as I have a bit of time on my
hands (2-3 weeks recuperation after an op) I'd thought I'd have a play
on a spare machine (well one I've not got a great use for at the
moment). After looking at the newsgroup I have been pointed to (as
well as my Live 5.1 soundcard, the one which Creative said would never
be outmoded as all they would have to do is upgrade the firmware,
isn't supported anymore) I think I may as well revert as everybody &
their dog, cat, mother, sister etc appear to be having problems with
one aspect of networking or another & there aren't any answers
forthcoming, yet. Another reason is the hit on resources (yes I know
I was told) just sitting there with most of the dross removed is still
taking 25% out of 2GB ram.. I've even reinstalled it (remembering some
of the problems I had in the early days of XP) & that didn't solve it
(can't activate it as I can't get on line to do so).

Oh well I'll play for a few more hours but I think the general
consensus is correct (sometimes they are wrong you know)


I have installed it on a spare partition and it automatically creates a
dual-boot system for you. Thus I can play with Vista and still use XP when
it suits

Peter Crosland



  #10  
Old March 4th 07, 08:06 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Vista & double NAT

Always fun to remember MPFC, but the difference here is that my story is
actually true ... I was single-handedly doing up a near-derelict cottage.

"Frazer Jolly Goodfellow" wrote in message
...
"Java Jive" wrote in
:

Back door! We used to *dream* of having a back door.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:




 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Router + Vista = pooped james uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 January 18th 07 06:44 PM
BT to double SDSL coverage Sunil Sood uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 July 2nd 04 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.