IP Safe?

[zimm]

i was just wondering is there a way someone can get my ip from hosting a runuo shard on uogateway?

[Quantos]

Probably. Try using www.no-ip.com .

[psz]

Even then, all they have to do is ping the name. That will show the IP.

If you are serving ANYTHING on the net (Web page, FTP, UO, UT, Q3, Mail, News, etc) all it really takes is the ping command.

[a_dahaka]

Your IP must be v4 for UO. UO does not support IPv6 yet.

Oh, you mean your address? Well, any time a TCP network connection is established, the client machine knows the server address. It's practically a requirement. (With forwarding set up, it is possible to hide the server's true address. I doubt it is even possible on a windows machine.)

If you are worried about security, then you should really ensure your system is secure... trying to prevent your players from learning your machine's address does not address the problems of security, and any random attacker could still compromise your machine.

[Phantom]

Yes

UO Gateway lists the Server's IP or DNS Name.

I can get your IP even if you use a DNS Name or block my ability to Ping your IP with your router.

I can track my connections which you can't stop.

If your worried about this: Don't run a server.

[psz]

(With forwarding set up, it is possible to hide the server's true address. I doubt it is even possible on a windows machine.)

Don't be silly. Of course you can do this in Windows. Hell, you could do it on a C64 if you wanted to :-P (I know people who have ;->)

[a_dahaka]

I mean with the tools given in a Windows installation. Obviously due to the availability of third-party firewalling software for Windows, it is very possible to create a networking application to hook the networking calls. Because of this, it is very probable that one could create a very advanced routing application for Windows.

I am aware that some versions of windows have "Routing and Remote Access", but from what I recall it is not very advanced and is rather rudimentary, just able to join two networks (I last saw it several years ago.) Very few home users run a version of Windows that has this option anyway, and if zimm does it is not very likely he could set it up his machine to properly forward and masquerade while having no listening ports on the exposed address. So in conclusion:

It was much easier just to say it can't be done.

[David]

So, in the computer industry you are making conclusions off of incomplete information that is several years old. Just checking...

[psz]

DUDE

That info is about as old as the C64 I mentioned. :shock:


You DO realise that Windows has support for IPv6, right?

And you DO realise that it has had TCP/IP (IPv4) for close to five YEARS, right?

Not to mention built in firewall...

Web server

FTP server

SMTP server

[a_dahaka]

You DO realise that Windows has support for IPv6, right?

Yes. But UO's serverlists transmit the addresses as four bytes, which is not sufficient for IPv6. Therefore, regardless of Windows' IPv6 support, UO will not work. Hence, I can safely state "your UO server's IP is v4".

Not to mention built in firewall...

Yes, there is one.

The other list you gave was irrelevant to the discussion of Windows' "out of box" routing capabilities.

I am done in this thread. It is pointless. When Phantom says something cannot be done, it often can be with enough work. Sure, it might be possible to set up Windows the way zimm described, but certainly not with ease and I doubt anyone wants to do a walkthrough of setting that up. Prove me wrong on both counts if you like, otherwise let it rest that I was generalising.

[Icon]

Ok well time for me to get into this discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but the only use/reason for Ip6 was to address more ips that will be needed in the near future. Not to stop DOS attacks/etc?


Hk

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by a_dahaka

Yes. But UO's serverlists transmit the addresses as four bytes, which is not sufficient for IPv6. Therefore, regardless of Windows' IPv6 support, UO will not work. Hence, I can safely state "your UO server's IP is v4".

Yes, there is one.

The other list you gave was irrelevant to the discussion of Windows' "out of box" routing capabilities.

I am done in this thread. It is pointless. When Phantom says something cannot be done, it often can be with enough work. Sure, it might be possible to set up Windows the way zimm described, but certainly not with ease and I doubt anyone wants to do a walkthrough of setting that up. Prove me wrong on both counts if you like, otherwise let it rest that I was generalising.

Wait a minute?

How did I get a part of this lame discussion?

I just told the author how it was. There isn't much he can do to prevent me from knowing what his IP is if I have a connection to it.

[a_dahaka]

Sorry, I should have given an example, Phantom.

One instance that I remember was when someone asked if they can use multiple command prefixes. It is possible (by adding a speech event handler), but because it is not a simple solution you simply say it can't be done. Why I mentioned it is because of this lame thread, and nothing that you wrote in it.

One of the important reasons for switching to IPv6 is the number of available addresses. It is probably the main reason, but there are some others, mainly a better routing implementation. As far as I know, it does not address DoS attacks directly.

[psz]

Yes. But UO's serverlists transmit the addresses as four bytes, which is not sufficient for IPv6. Therefore, regardless of Windows' IPv6 support, UO will not work. Hence, I can safely state "your UO server's IP is v4".

Quote:
Not to mention built in firewall...

Yes, there is one.

Um, hello... WHERE did I say UO could use IPv6? I didn't. You made some REALLY incorrect remarks about Windows' abilities, and I was correcting you :-/

Specifically:

I am aware that some versions of windows have "Routing and Remote Access",

They all have for over two years now.

but from what I recall it is not very advanced and is rather rudimentary, just able to join two networks (I last saw it several years ago.)

It's essentially a stripped down version of PC Anywhere

Very few home users run a version of Windows that has this option anyway,

All Windows OS' from 2002 on have it.

[David]

Not really sure where the IPv6 portion of this conversation came from. However, there was a discussion a while back with a young lady from Belgium concerning RunUO support for IPv6. As I recall, the conclusion was that .NET does, of course, support IPv6 so RunUO support would be possible but the UO client does not.

And, no, IPv6 does not address security concerns.

On a related note, did you know every citizen of Belgium gets free broadband? It's all IPv6 though so theres no running a UO server... sorry.

[psz]

XP's IPv6 comes with an IPv6-IPv4 Tunnel ;->


ANYthing is possible ;->

[David]

Possible I am sure, practical is the concern I have.

The problem with tunneling or dual-stack either one is the way the client-server communication works. As I understand it, when the client tells the server it wants a connection set up the server feeds its own address back (hence the ServerList.cs file) and a session is set up. In the UO protocol there is only 4 bytes for addressing information. So transversing a mixed IPv4/IPv6 network is not a problem as long as both endpoints have a IPv4 address.

[psz]

Which should't be a problem: All versions of Windows (The start point, and end points for a UO to RunUO server/client setup) will have IPv4 built-in. The start point's IPv6 tunnel will convert to IPv6 for the network, and then back again at the end point.

That's how it's SUPPOSED to work, at any rate ;->

[David]

Unless your in Belgium where there is no valid IPv4 address to convert back to.

[psz]

Well, you can set the machine up to have it's own IPv4 address. (Once IPv4 is set up on the machine, it will, of course, have 127.0.0.1 set up automatically)

There should be a way to use the tunnel (Albeit a bit haphazardly) to get the public IPv6 address to forward (through the tunnel) to the loopback, or maybe even a LAN IP....

Not being in Belgium, though, I don't think I'll be the one to look harder into this ;->

[David]

LoL! *jumps up* send me! send me!

Ture this is all very theoretical for us with a IPv4 based network. But as long as we don't have to actually test our theories... I was thinking some sort of IPv4 proxy for IPv6 servers. For example, I put a 2K3 server up on a static ip with the IPv6 stack running. Then I route traffic on 2593 that hits that v4 ip to the v6 server over a v6 tunnel. The ServerList on the box on the v6 network would actually use the v4 address of my machine. Clients then connect to my machine in the USA and it bounces the packets to the actual server in Belgium. Since the server endpoint now has a IPv4 address I think it would work. Lag may be an issue, but hey we can't have everything, right?

[psz]

This is more or less what I was thinking in terms of How To.

Not being near the two or three Uni's here in the States that are on Internet2 (Or other "public" IPv6 based networks), I have no way to test.

Ah well.


If nothing else, maybe OSI will support IPv6 at some point... If not, maybe KUOC and Iris will support IPv6 in the future ;->