CfqGCVf-7ZPJhFykw@???>
From: Andrew Gilmour <andy@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknUm6sFkLavbYYRRGjA46WxGd3YfPw5ncdMtlfti1YecCkakW6wt0tEX6mNtQomn2O5PTO
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
28 May 2012 12:53:42 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.52
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 74.125.0.0/16
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust
* [74.125.82.52 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:53:01 +0000
Subject: [bitfolk] VPN's and extra IP's
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:53:43 -0000
--0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I would like to set up a VPN, for mostly hobby rather
than commercial reasons so being Scottish, I'm trying to find the Low/No
cost solution.
For reference, the set up document I have been looking at is
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=132029 .
Now first question, in /etc/pptpd.conf we have a line similar to
remoteip 172.198.2.50-51
If my understanding is correct, this refers to the "external IP's" that my
VPS at bitfolk would be assigning to the client devices, so being Scottish,
and as I say, being a low budget little project, is there a way of setting
up a VPS using just a single IP, or what costs are involved
in acquiring a handful of IP's?
Secondly, Ill quickly summarise my objectives here so you can let me know
just how wrong a tree I'm barking up by taking the VPN path :)
Purpose 1 : To allow me to connect safely to insecure networks using
android tablets/phones (2.2,2.3,4), and a dual boot laptop (ubuntu/win7)
and just for shits and giggles probably my old windows mobile collection
(3,5,6).
Purpose 2 : My ISP quite frequently has difficulty with its routing to the
North American RIFT Servers... but never to me good old VPS,
so I'm thinking in these occasions it may provide a (possibly somewhat
imperfect) bypass to that problem when it happens.
Purpose 3 : Minecraft Pocket Edition. I introduced my nephew to minecraft
on his Archos tablet, unlike the desktop versions, it only supports LAN
games... Im thinking if it was on the same VPN as me, it would probably
let us play a LAN game together, even with him being in Aberdeen, and me
being on Skye?
All input and suggestions are welcome.
--
AndyG
http://www.slightlysheepish.com/
--0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to set up a VPN, for mostly hobby rather than=A0commercial=A0r=
easons so being Scottish,=A0I'm=A0trying to find the Low/No cost soluti=
on.<div><br></div><div>For reference, the set up document I have been looki=
ng at is=A0
<a href=3D"
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=3D132029">
http://for=
ums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=3D132029</a>=A0.</div><div><br></div><div=
>Now first question, in=A0
<span style=3D"font-family:verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',ar=
ial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)">=
/etc/pptpd.conf</span>=A0we have a line=A0similar=A0to=A0</div><div><span s=
tyle=3D"background-color:rgb(221,221,221);font-size:1.1em;text-align:left">=
remoteip 172.198.2.50-51</span><div>
If my understanding is correct, this refers to the "external IP's&=
quot; that my VPS at bitfolk would be assigning to the client devices, so b=
eing Scottish, and as I say, being a low budget little project, is there a =
way of setting up a VPS using just a single IP, or what costs are involved =
in=A0acquiring=A0a=A0handful=A0of IP's?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Secondly, Ill quickly summarise my objectives here so y=
ou can let me know just how wrong a tree=A0I'm=A0barking up by taking t=
he VPN path :)=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Purpose 1 : To allow me to conne=
ct=A0safely=A0to insecure networks using android tablets/phones (2.2,2.3,4)=
, and a dual boot laptop (ubuntu/win7) and just for shits and giggles proba=
bly my old windows mobile collection (3,5,6).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Purpose 2 : My ISP quite=A0frequently has difficulty wi=
th its routing to the North American RIFT Servers... but never to me good o=
ld VPS,=A0=A0 so=A0I'm=A0thinking in these occasions it may provide a (=
possibly=A0somewhat imperfect) bypass to that problem when it happens.</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>Purpose 3 : Minecraft Pocket Edition. =A0I introduced m=
y nephew to minecraft on his Archos tablet, unlike the desktop versions, it=
only supports LAN games... =A0Im thinking if it was on the same VPN as me,=
it would probably let us play a LAN game=A0together, even with him being i=
n Aberdeen, and me being on Skye?</div>
<div><br></div><div>All input and suggestions are welcome.</div><div><br></=
div>-- <br>AndyG<div><a href=3D"
http://www.slightlysheepish.com/" target=3D=
"_blank">
http://www.slightlysheepish.com/</a>
</div><br>
</div>
--0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc--
From andy@??? Mon May 28 15:13:42 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1SZ1de-0002K3-4v
for users@???; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:13:42 +0000
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:13:42 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120528151342.GT12360@???>
References: <CALaLcMyBdLvBgystBuP6OctHeTvoxv3mDCfqGCVf-7ZPJhFykw@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jn9znQ5OoOl0oegR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALaLcMyBdLvBgystBuP6OctHeTvoxv3mDCfqGCVf-7ZPJhFykw@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
28 May 2012 15:13:42 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] VPN's and extra IP's
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:13:42 -0000
--jn9znQ5OoOl0oegR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Andrew,
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:53:36PM +0100, Andrew Gilmour wrote:
> is there a way of setting up a [VPN] using just a single IP, or
> what costs are involved in acquiring a handful of IP's?
While I suppose it is possible to have both your VPS and a VPN
sharing the same public IP, you'll find it much easier to use a
different public IP for the VPN.
If you ask for one additional IPv4 for use as a VPN endpoint then I
would consider that a good technical justification and would not
charge for this=B9. Multiple IPv4 for end-user VPNs would be harder to
justify (probably should be NAT'ing them).
> Purpose 2 : My ISP quite frequently has difficulty with its routing to the
> North American RIFT Servers... but never to me good old VPS,
> so I'm thinking in these occasions it may provide a (possibly somewhat
> imperfect) bypass to that problem when it happens.
Just as long as you realise that you'll have the latency between you
and the VPS and then the latency between the VPS and these other
servers.
> Purpose 3 : Minecraft Pocket Edition. I introduced my nephew to minecraft
> on his Archos tablet, unlike the desktop versions, it only supports LAN
> games... Im thinking if it was on the same VPN as me, it would probably
> let us play a LAN game together, even with him being in Aberdeen, and me
> being on Skye?
This sounds unlikely to work.
Cheers,
Andy
=B9 Currently we charge a one-off administrative fee for assigning
additional IPs which covers the back and forth required to arrive
at a technical justification.
Soon, RIPE's supply of IPv4 addresses will run out and inevitably
we will need to charge a recurring fee for every IPv4 address
beyond the one that comes with the VPS, just to prevent customers
sitting on addresses they no longer need.
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--jn9znQ5OoOl0oegR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk/DliUACgkQIJm2TL8VSQvmUQCbBpRjejTKsYpAs1rnjJ8Hsjgc
ox8AoLWGeh3qc5HVQA1IXKE3rq9Ingq4
=W+uO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--jn9znQ5OoOl0oegR--
From mstevens@??? Mon May 28 15:18:47 2012
Received: from ceres.etla.org ([2001:ba8:1f1:f1ef::2])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mstevens@???>)
id 1SZ1iZ-0003FV-A9; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:18:47 +0000
Received: from mstevens by ceres.etla.org with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <mstevens@???>)
id 1SZ1iY-00062v-0j; Mon, 28 May 2012 16:18:46 +0100
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:18:45 +0100
From: Michael Stevens <mstevens@???>
To: Andy Smith <andy@???>
Message-ID: <20120528151845.GB15140@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (48% of Full)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
28 May 2012 15:18:47 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f1ef::2
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mstevens@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run,
due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Cc: users@???
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] 64-bit support
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:18:48 -0000
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 02:43:47PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>=20
> As you may be aware, BitFolk currently doesn't support 64-bit
> guests. The reasons for this are:
>=20
> - 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
> per-process compared to 32-bit.
> - 99.04% of BitFolk customers have less than 2GiB addressable RAM.
> - Supporting only 32-bit or only 64-bit is a bit simpler.
>=20
> We do, however occasionally lose custom due to not supporting 64-bit
> guests.
>=20
> A future memory upgrade (not planned as to when) will obviously push
> more people into the space where >2G RAM per process would be
> beneficial, so I will consider switching to only 64-bit by that
> time. Will anyone be terribly upset to leave 32-bit behind?
>=20
> To clarify I am saying that after that point new installs would have
> to be 64-bit. Existing 32-bit installs would be unaffected.
>=20
> Also if you have a requirement for 64-bit it would be appreciated if
> you could vote for:
>=20
> https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/27
I've encountered an interesting reason for 64bit recently - apparently
go (
http://golang.org/) has problems with long running 32 bit server
processes that go away on 64bit.
Not that I have any code that actually qualifies.
Michael
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/Dl1UACgkQyzbtqr+wCIi66wCfbQPiqnO24bBq/kWUjZdEVe23
LxMAn06G5Bz3gYxRf6mXMKHqNOohu31A
=pv+A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--
From danielcase10@??? Mon May 28 15:21:05 2012
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <danielcase10@???>)
id 1SZ1kn-0003Zu-6g
for users@???; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:21:05 +0000
Received: by wibhm6 with SMTP id hm6so1512549wib.3
for <users@???>; Mon, 28 May 2012 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=mSY3ED9Z4VklbG6RUTK8BhFwMOQp4W2VDq66s80XFw4=;
b=lEhf6EtTQ0LQ58Jzp9SDsTWJ6BaCbHfo2L9UQUJw4wsmlbg4HxG8AQw27sk7XH9fPw
6gl/pJkD11PikthGxAYhs8PxVonj9PDt8GMY9iPoEaF84Ra9VhqGWTASAwNGoeB7f/FR
PdGIX5+Vr9Skh64uis1n8DBnJ85vAg8fsbbmv1LkkAlkDIQjdlgRLzB2XJqPuMPNHnv7
uvnMWOj5OtsRhhRNolhvWByU7n8o+KJLEuvu2T5qrg1WPpMXUaot8Iqkpd+Uw03Ul34N
kYxvpbcBHI/ZO759HrqSX87vpTC3KgimaRI9ti2SnxiDCvx2/6ORQmTn81ig3ApO9/T6
5nUw==
Received: by 10.216.141.164 with SMTP id g36mr4894856wej.119.1338218459724;
Mon, 28 May 2012 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.58.134 with HTTP; Mon, 28 May 2012 08:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120528151342.GT12360@???>
References: <CALaLcMyBdLvBgystBuP6OctHeTvoxv3mDCfqGCVf-7ZPJhFykw@???>
<20120528151342.GT12360@???>
From: Daniel Case <danielcase10@???>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:20:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CALdaYd3T3K+GQLw+jAXVsQgcRvsJNTWAGziMgEnASauq1GsRiQ@???>
To: Andy Smith <andy@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
28 May 2012 15:21:05 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.212.170
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: danielcase10@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.212.0/24
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
*
