port 25 refused

[Sanjay Arora]

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 17:57, Craig White wrote:
> 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
> 
Craig

Is it really so unworkable? or is it just that you cant imagine such bad
connectivity in the west?

Sanjay.