Apparently I got the marshal flag on my birthday 2 years ago ;p

ty HTH

so it is an I :D

I hate fonts that don't let me distinguish between I and l

@barlop: most modems give an external IP. What're you worried about specifically?

@allquixotic: as do I

IlIlIlllllllIIIIIIIlllIIlIlIIIlllIIIII

looks fine in SE font

looks awful in android gmail

well, let's say it gives a private ip and I want to switch it to give an external ip. If I connect a comp to it i'm exposing that comp to the internet directly, not behind any NAT router. There may be a server running, it seems risky.

@allquixotic And this is why sans-serif sucks

@Bob also, I really like monospace fonts recently, even for regular English text :P

lol

there's good sans serif fonts

@allquixotic Heh, I still prefer proportional when reading lots of text.

@JourneymanGeek say whut?

One of my favourite fonts ever

@jokerdino: ;p

oh flags

i thought it was allq pinging me.

naw

@jokerdino PIIIIINGGGGGG

BOOO

is that loud enough to be considered a super-ping?

or do you have to have a blue name to super-ping?

):

yes

brb.

):

how would you safely turn off NAT on a device? so you don't immediately open the computer configuring the device to attack?

@barlop: you don't. You turn off DHCP

@allquixotic SUPERPING

@allquixotic: first time I have ever done that ;p

@JourneymanGeek turn dhcp of on the modem? or the computer configuring it? or both?

@barlop: I'm assuming its a modem router

and usually incoming ports are closed by default

@JourneymanGeek even with NAT off?

I'm not even sure what you hope to achieve by turning off nat ;p

might as well unplug the outside line, configure then plug it in

@JourneymanGeek hte? JUMOED? :P

@JourneymanGeek don't people turn off NAT on it to avoid double NAT when connecting a router to it?

@Bob: YOU try typing fast with paws.

(I noticed, I didn't bother to correct)

@barlop: nope

@JourneymanGeek what do you think I type with? :P

they turn off DHCP

@barlop that's not how attacks work

you need a listening service

@jokerdino new avatar :O

yea

a computer connected to the internet isn't going listen for all commands on every port

all ports are closed by default on any sane OS

some service can open a port and listen for connections on it

some services could be exploited

@Bob windows has ports like 135 that is hopefully only local

??

things like netbios over tcpip, which the firewall restricts to lan only

depends how it's configured

ideally, you'd have a firewall on the local machine preventing connections from at least outside of your local subnet

yes bob

also, you can't just "turn off NAT" - "turning off NAT" isn't a goal, it's a step towards another goal. at least that's the case with SOHO devices

I thought people avoided 'double NAT' by turning off NAT on one of the devices, but apparently not?

if you want to bridge a computer directly to a modem, you can turn off the NAT/router functionality

@barlop then what you're actually doing is connecting them as switches

no routing between them

some router/switch combo devices let you "turn off NAT", which actually bridges the WAN port to the other LAN ports

if you turn off NAT and it still uses a routing table, then i'd think it's still technically a router.

@barlop sure, but I don't think a SOHO device that can do that exists?

I don't know if when you turn NAT off on a SOHO device, if it stops using its routing table?

do you assume it does?

what do you expect it to do? unless something is using it as a gateway, or it itself is opening connections, no router functionality should come into play

@Bob in this question arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1239869 somebody asked whether, if you turn NAT off, a router becomes a bridge, and the answer from people in that thread was a resounding no. Though you seem to say 'yes'. The original poster might also say yes. so maybe the jury is out on that.

@barlop it depends on the device

in networking theory, of course you can have a router that doesn't perform NAT

@Bob you mean the consumer devices you've seen do not have an option to turn NAT off?

most consumer devices' firmware don't seem to offer that option

@barlop: NOPE

oops

@barlop if they do, it often disables the router entirely

you're left with a switch with LAN and the WAN port bridged

That's the common theme I've seen with consumer router/switch/mode/waps

@Bob how would you know the router is disabled completely?

@barlop does it make any difference?

if nothing is using it as a gateway, then it's not going to be acting as a router

@Bob If nothing is using it as a gateway(router), then it's not going to be used as a router. but how do you know that the router is disabled completely?

@barlop I don't know, and I don't care. I'm not gonna decompile all the thousands of different firmwares our there just to answer that question for you.

Now, some routers do let you set up manual routes

those might still be useful

yes i'm aware of what proper routers do

o0

I just got logged out of SU

The ones that don't let you set up static routes? The question becomes: "what can it do as a router without NAT?"

if the answer is "nothing", then the routing functionality becomes useless

let's say I turn NAT off.. then when I do ipconfig, would it show the same IP for my comp as for the router?

@barlop What?

let me ask that another way

what would ipconfig show

The IP assigned depends entirely on DHCP

or your manual config

(or BOOTP, I guess, but that's not really used here)

i'm sure with my modem, I connected a comp to the modem and it got an external IP. So I guess the modem didn't have an IP?

eh, again, depends on your device

wait

is this a modem or a modem router?

@JourneymanGeek take the case of a modem not a modem router.

I've got a router here that, if you disabled NAT, would bridge the LAN and WAN ports but fail to turn off its internal DHCP server

then it would conflict with other DHCP servers on the network :\

@barlop: oh, then probably no.

(and I think you're overthinking it ;p)

but ideally you'd turn off DHCP, turn off NAT, bridging the LAN and WAN ports, and you'd be left with a switch

then your IP assignment comes from any DHCP server connected to that switch

@JourneymanGeek if the device has no option to turn NAT on/off, but has a DHCP option. Then is that a modem router? or a plain modem?

you'd also probably want to change the IP of the management interface to be in the same subnet as everything else, or you won't be able to access it anymore

@barlop it's a device without an option to turn NAT off, which could be anything really

If it has more than one ethernet port and/or wifi and it connects you to the internet its a modem router

or just read the label

I have another router here, a TP-LINK, that doesn't have an option to disable NAT :\

a device that's not a router and doesn't have NAT wouldn't have the option. but it's not guaranteed that other devices will

hm. come to think of it, I think a plain modem operates as a router without NAT

meh.

@JourneymanGeek one ethernet port. a dhcp option. no option to turn nat off. I suppose whether it does what it does as a switch or a router doesn't make a difference.. But if I connect a computer to it and run ipconfig and it shows the computer to have an external ip.. then would it be shocking if it showed the same ip for 'default gateway'? 'cos that's what I recall it doing

there's an example for your argument :P

sounds like a modem to me

@barlop if it assigns connected devices an IP in the private range while allowing external internet access, it's definitely performing NAT

if it assigns your public IP... well... hrm

@JourneymanGeek a computer connected to a modem would show the same IP for itself and the default gateway? thing is, it doesn't make much sense for two devices to have the same IP.. which makes me think windows just does that to fill in the gap, for 'default gateway'. (assuming i'm remembering right), but, have you ever seen that?

sounds like a plain modem, but I'm curious how it would work as a gateway over ethernet with the same IP

@barlop mind pasting the output of route print?

@Bob i'm not keen on plugging it into a windows machine that may have servers open and not protected by a firewall. so can't right now.

Here is an example. so I think I remembered right

@barlop yea, was wondering more about route print though

it should list all routes, not just the default

maybe it has a route defined for that external IP

so default (0.0.0.0) goes to externalip

ok but have you seen that before, ipconfig showing same ip for computer and for default gateway?

and when it looks up how to get to externalip, it goes to some other place

@barlop nope... I can't even find a plain ADSL modem

it's all modem/routers here

btw what is linux's equivalent to route print?

@Bob if you put your modem-router in bridge mode or turned NAT off, would you lose any internet connection?

@barlop I think it's the same :P

man route

@barlop I'd better not mess with it right now

Heck, I don't think I can turn off NAT on this one :S

hm

same command.. ok.. but re that q^ If when you turn nat off or bridging on, and it gets to the internet.. i suppose it could be a switch or a router we wouldn't know.

@barlop well, it's definitely a modem.

there's no switch

a switch is pointless without multiple ports

it's also probably acting as a router

without NAT

Bob, I don't think we know. As you said yourself, you'd have to decompile the router code to know and you haven't so you don't know!

@barlop "probably"

if it's your gateway, that means you send your packets to it and it sends them onwards: a router

morning

@Bob why even say a 'probably' . like 50%. no point. we can't get a good percentage on likelyhood . No point assuming, no benefit to it.

@barlop the thing that I wouldn't know is if the router functionality is fully disabled when you uncheck the NAT option

that depends how the firmware is written

@Bob yes that is what we are talking about and you don't know and I don't know

however, we can test if this at least accepts and forwards packets

@Bob that doesn't help does it

it doesn't help us to know

@barlop well, if it does then you'd know it can also be called a router :P

if it doesn't... well, you might as well say it's not a router

@Bob no 'cos you don't know whether it's forwarding the "packets" not really as packets, but based on MAC address.

it doesn't matter if only the port is closed but the process is still running, or the code is active in the kernel but it rejects packets. as long as it doesn't appear to forward packets, it might as well be called not a router

@barlop routers work on packets and IP addresses

@Bob yes i'm aware of that

@Bob what we are discussing is the fact that you don't know whether it's a router or a switch.. and you seemed to acknowledge that earlier but now you don't want to acknowledge that and want to use the word 'probably' with no basis for even being >50% one way or the other.

Anyone here already used "Soap Client for osx" ? I can't figured out how make it work. I put my url with the wsdl, as I used to do on SoapUI, but it didn't work =(

@barlop well, I said above. You're sure it's a modem. I'm pretty certain there's no switch involved if it's only got a single port.

Whether it's operating as a router or not, you can find out

I said probably because it most likely is, for you to be able to connect through it.

@Bob I asked earlier how you can find out, you didn't seem to know. you said if it's not being used as a gateway(that means router) then it's not a router. that is logically obviously compeltely false.

so close to another badge.

@barlop I said you can't find out if the firmware completely disables all router functionality when you uncheck the NAT option

you're reading my words in an entirely different context

I also said that if you're not using it as a router, it's effectively not a router as far as you're concerned

it has the capability to act as a router, but it is not currently doing go

my laptop can be a router

it currently is not

@Bob you don't know whether it is using a routing table or not

you don't know if it's using a routing table or bridging table. you don't know!

my raspberry pi is a router. incidentally, that's achieved with functionality built into the linux kernel

@barlop and that is immaterial

@Bob it is absolutely not immaterial.. because if you don't know X then you shouldn't claim X

@Bob that is cool, I need to upgrade from the Arduino Uno that I haven't touched in over a year

@barlop my laptop uses a routing table. as far as I am concerned, it is not a router

@Bob ok but then it's semantics.. as long as we know what we mean it's fine.

you can argue about terminology all day; it'll get you no closer to your answer

no i'm not arguing about terminology.

I admit I may not be using the correct term in all cases. In this case, I believe I am.

It's meaningless to call all internet-connected devices routers.

Windows, Linux, they all use routing tables internally.

They all have the capability to act as routers (for other devices on the network).

But we don't call them that, normally.

yes that's reasonable to say

Would you ever consider a two port device a router?

@barlop A router has little to do with ports, though...

so I guess that's a Yes

A router, the networking concept, doesn't care how many hardware ports you have.

You can have multiple ports each as its own interface.

You can route between interfaces like that.

That's how the WAN and LAN are set up on most consumer devices.

how are you defining port(as distinct from interface)?

@barlop At the moment, I'm considering them analogous to the 'eth0', etc., on *nix

not quite true to the networking concept, but close enough in practice

i'd hae thought hardware port and interface are the same thing

@Malachi I wouldn't really recommend it if you have any high speed network :P

@barlop Hm.. depends? :P

On a consumer router box, they normally attach a switch to the LAN side of the router

you see four ports, the router sees a single interface... I think

Those are kinda like ports on the switch, not on the router

though you only see a single physical box you may call a "router"

@Bob i'd guess the router has 1 interface and the switch has , say, 4. I suppose maybe with switches the're not called interfaces?

@barlop Eh. Fuzzy.

yes I see what you mean.. let's use the general term port then..

I wouldn't bother calling them that in consumer devices. I'd rather think of switches as dumb devices.

But they're not really dumb devices. They do perform some level of routing (to use an incorrect term)

so, say you have a router with 2 ports. REALLY two ports. no switch connected to it with more ports.

you'd still call it a router..

@barlop then you've just described most consumer routers

a WAN port and a LAN port

In fact, I think you've described most routers, period.

yep.. though colloquially, one wouldn't call their laptop a router but would a 2 port device that uses a routing table. though both use a routing table. I accept that terminology we're on the same page I think!

@barlop hm, I still think it's independent of the number of ports, though

I could add a second port on my laptop or desktop, for the purpose of connecting to two networks

heck, the wifi is effectively such a port (interface, really)

it's still using a routing table

but I wouldn't call it a router

in the same vein, my raspberry pi that I call a router is only using a single port

@Bob though the laptop is isn't it? with 2 ports it's as much a router as the consumer one

@barlop you maen the hardware is capable of doing so.

but the software is not configured to do so

again, the concept of a router is independent from the exact hardware layout

you can have a router between 3G and WiFi

@Bob If a packet comes through the wifi couldn't it hit your routing table and go to your LAN?

it doesn't have to be ethernet. doesn't have to have physical ports

@barlop nope

say I connect to two different typical home networks through both eth and wifi on my laptop

each will assign its own gateway, by DHCP, yes?

yes I suppose so

yes I can see it'd just go to the laptop not the routing table

when i make an outgoing request, it'll look up the internal routing table

if it's a request to a local network, and only one of the two satisfies it (say, 192.168.3.x vs 192.168.4.x), then it'd go out to one

if it's a request to some other address, whichever gateway with the lowest metric for 0.0.0.0 gets it

incoming requests, well, depends on the originating network

yeah.. for incoming requests.. yep the NAT decides.

but unless I specifically tell my laptop to start forwarding requests between the two, people can't use my laptop to cross the two networks

and until I do so, I wouldn't consider it a router

fair enough

you could say it's acting as the local gateway/router for any programs on it

but I'm looking at it from the bigger devices view

a device with a routing table that isn't set to take incoming isn't really a router.

the laptop routing table is only set to handle outgoing

@barlop that's my thought, yes. it's acting as a router for programs inside it, but not for external devices

so if you were an external device, you wouldn't see it as a router

yes that's fair. to say it's not a router on that basis

(incidentally, my laptop kinda is a router - it's a router for the VMs inside it! but I kinda ignored that :P)

yeah.. using a routing table for incoming and outgoing, there it's a router.

anyway... back to the original question? :P

was ipconfig just filling the gap..

i'd have to do route print for more info..

i'll let you know...

to be honest, I don't know what ipconfig does for certain

that pic is quite explicit

but I think I've had a case with a misconfigured DHCP server not handing out a gateway, and ipconfig just left it blank

@barlop I wonder if you can query the DHCP server

@barlop maybe try this? blog.thecybershadow.net/2013/01/10/dhcp-test-client

O_O it's written in D

i'd rather do this from knoppix

@Michel don't use osx, sorry. can you describe how it doesn't work?

@Bob just seems cool that you can do that even. I can imagine like a million things that I would try to do if I had one or 20 of those things

@Malachi it's pretty much just like any other linux box

just lower power usage and smaller

I use it because I can't fit a full machine near there

and it's about a tenth the price of a NUC

but it's also somewhat limited

I think when I tried with knoppix, ifconfig gave the same ip for comp and default gateway. Is there a dhcptest kind of program for linux?

no gigabit ethernet

I'm not even sure it can route 50mbps reliably

but it's only routing for my ADSL2+ connection at the moment, which is pretty limited anyway

@barlop there should be, but I don't know one :\

@barlop man dhclient

@Bob that is what is so cool. I tried to tell the network guys they should use one in one of the courthouses to display a website on a TV. super simple stuff, they had already bought a network box thing that was probably about 3 times the price

@barlop I think you can see some output if you run dhclient -d

but I'm not sure

@Malachi wouldn't necessarily be reliable though

especially if you bring graphics and websites and scripts into it

I could see it lagging :P

@Bob it would only be used for a scroller, I don't imagine it being very big either.

it is a scroller with court information on it, no graphics

I just think the pi is best suited for a headless role

though it could work for what you propose

@Bob yep will take me a while but i will let you know

@OliverSalzburg link?

@barlop thanks

@Bob stackoverflow.com/questions/23498699/…

Seems like it was just deleted

@OliverSalzburg SO :(

not 10k there yet

@OliverSalzburg thanks

o.O

different one?

still...

That's the same one

The comments were below the answer

oh

@HackToHell, I got a couple people playing Tag pro at 10. You in?

@jokerdino OKay

Tag pro?

tagpro.koalabeast.com

@jokerdino Im HTH

If I wasn't working, I'd join in :(

@HackToHell i am MBB in singapore server now

@HackToHell I tried playing but my laptop is so SLOOOOW. :`(

@HackToHell dude, you are damn pro

@jokerdino I got lucky :P

xD

@ThatBrazilianGuy but this game is basically some js