[NCLUG] ATT and servers.

Matt Pujol mattp at lsil.com
Wed Feb 20 12:08:17 MST 2002


I agree that you can put up a server and probably get away with it, until
your Descent server has 100 players (I made that number up 'cause it seemed
big) and consumes all the bandwidth on your branch of the network.  Then
you'll get the nastygram.

My point was that from the user agreement standpoint, it's a violation and
it's basically at your own risk.

I've been on the ATT provided network (@home/attbi) for about 3 years now.
They never, since I've been with them advocated putting up a server, as a
matter of fact, the @home agreement specifically dis-allowed it and the
attbi agreement made the language even stronger.  Registering you IP with
dns.org is also against the rules.

One point I strongly agree with is that the user agreement is there to
simply to give ATT a multitude of ways to cut you off if they want, and
raise your monthly rate whenever they want, and feel free to modify your
service arrangements whenever they want.  It's part of the customer service.

But, hey....I'm a marketing guy....rules are merely guidelines, made to be
tested, right?

Matt

/***********************
Matt Pujol
Product Marketing Manager
1394 and USB CoreWare Technologies
Broadband Custom Solutions Marketing

LSI Logic
2001 Danfield Court
Fort Collins, Co 80525
970-206-5816
970-206-5116 fax
matt.pujol at lsil.com
***********************/


-----Original Message-----
From: nclug-admin at nclug.org [mailto:nclug-admin at nclug.org]On Behalf Of
Michael Dwyer
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:30 AM
To: nclug at nclug.org
Subject: Re: [NCLUG] ATT and servers.


Matt Pujol wrote:
> Since I've been using @home/attbi, they have never allowed any sort of
> server to run on the customer side - including a Quake or Descent server.

Allow me to qualify that a little... The documents when I first started
with @Home said in paraphrase, "Sure!  Run a server!  We don't care!
Just don't come crying to us when you get hacked.  And if you hog the
bandwidth and annoy your neighbors, we're gonna slap you good."

They then changed to, "No.  No, no, no.  No servers of any kind."  This,
of course, opened up the debate about "just what /is/ a 'server',
anyway'.  This debate continues...

It would appear that the rules still say "No, no no!"

However, IANAL, but I suspect that the rules are simply there to give
them a reason to cut you off if you annoy them.  If you are a good
network citizen, they don't seem to bother you if you break their
rules.  I even hear that people are getting netscanned regularly from
@Home administrative hosts.  I'm sure they found my web server a number
of times, but they never caused me problems.

Really, the No Servers rule is better enforced with their upstream
bandwidth cap and dynamic addresses.

BTW, the DHCP protocol generally gives you your old address back when
you renew.  If I recall, when you renew your dynamic address lease, the
protocol is something like:
 o I've used to have this IP!
 o Yeah, I guess you do.  Well, it hasn't gotten stale enough for me to
give it to someone else, so here's your lease back.
 o Great, thanks!

Also, for what it is worth, when I scan my cable modem, it shows these
ports:
  Port       State       Service
  137/tcp    filtered    netbios-ns
  138/tcp    filtered    netbios-dgm
  139/tcp    filtered    netbios-ssn
  1080/tcp   filtered
socks

The first three prevent windows file sharing, the last one prevents
misconfigured proxies from becoming hosts to IRC wars.  The other
standard ports aren't touched.  There is nothing technically stopping
one from starting an FTP or HTTP server.  This block list shows that it
is technically possible for AT&T to stop you, but right now they
apparenly choose not to.
_______________________________________________
NCLUG mailing list
NCLUG at nclug.org
http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug




More information about the NCLUG mailing list