Access denied

[aremarf]

Problem from Singapore here.

For reference, your offending addresses are listed below.
218-186-8-11.cache.maxonline.com.sg. - StarHub Cable Vision Ltd, Singapore, Singapore

whatismyip.com says: Your IP Address Is: 218.186.8.246

Looks like I can't hit anyone that a Starhub user has hit? Singapore is a very densely populated country - 5+ million people are served by 3 major ISPs. This could be very bad. Will I quit the game? Let's see... Hmmm.

[Bishop]

That no excuse for the ISP not configuring their servers right. You will see this issue with many websites. Its not a bug either.

[s2mike]

erm, bishop you mentioned that they will be ways coming to solve the singapore problems? it's been weeks, any update?

[Bishop]

We've added all the ranges we can - unless we get word that more ranges have been fixed we cant add them.

[aremarf]

I don't know how to solve the problem. Thanks for your help anyway Bishop. Hope your game continues to flourish! :-)

[Napoleon]

Bishop, the Singapore servers ARE configured correctly - exactly as required by Singapore law. There is nothing incorrect about configuring people to run through a proxy. You may not like the law, but that's the way it is and that's how Singapore (and may other ISPs) are configured.

And NO properly configured website has a problem with it. Show us even ONE with a developer who knows what he's doing that has a problem with this site.

[Palem]

www.utopia-game.com

[Bishop]

Bishop, the Singapore servers ARE configured correctly - exactly as required by Singapore law. There is nothing incorrect about configuring people to run through a proxy. You may not like the law, but that's the way it is and that's how Singapore (and may other ISPs) are configured.

And NO properly configured website has a problem with it. Show us even ONE with a developer who knows what he's doing that has a problem with this site.

The servers are badly configured. There are several things wrong when this bad configuration results in your servers acting as an anonymizing service. That Singapore chooses to accept this is their decision.

Some of our players have contacted their ISPs and been told that xff headers cannot be sent by them and in some cases staff do not know what they are. This is despite some of the ISPs ranges being configured correctly with xff headers.

You aren't even playing from Singapore. Why don't you educate yourself about their situation first and then come back to me.

[Napoleon]

Palem, I did say with a developer who KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING. Developers who know what they are doing know better than to try this.

And Bishop, no, the problem is in your understanding (or lack of understanding) on how TCP/IP works. There is no requirement that every device have it's own IP address - and in fact, there are millions of devices connected to the internet which don't have their own addresses. There is nothing wrong with Singapore's configuration - except that it doesn't match YOUR desires. And there are thousands of companies right here in the U.S. with similar configurations. Most are small - but there are also many big ones - like IBM, Microsoft, Intel... Are you going to tell them their configuration is wrong also?

The rest of the world is not going to change how TCP/IP works just to satisfy you.

[Bishop]

You dont know what you are talking about.

[Napoleon]

I know a lot more about it than you do, Bishop, that's for sure. I've been dealing with computers (both hardware and software) since 1967. I was first on the internet when it was arpanet back in the 70's. I've been working with networks ever since.

Proxy servers are very common. In fact, there are protocols designed just to allow such operations - as an example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network...ss_translation.

You are the one with no idea what you're talking about, Bishop. But then that has become quite obvious.

[Bishop]

I reiterate, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about because a lot of your statements are plain wrong or nonsensical. For someone that claims over 4 decades of experience i find some of the statements you have made to be unbelievable. Lets break it down a bit, though I suspect you are just trying to stir up **** as "revenge" for you getting an earlier ban.

Bishop, the Singapore servers ARE configured correctly - exactly as required by Singapore law. There is nothing incorrect about configuring people to run through a proxy. You may not like the law, but that's the way it is and that's how Singapore (and may other ISPs) are configured.

They aren't configured right (and the legality of them means 0 here) - their XFF headers aren't set on all their ranges. This means that some of them act as an anonymizing service. FYI this problem is know and acknowledged by SG players.

There are not "many" ISPs that have their servers configured this way.

And NO properly configured website has a problem with it. Show us even ONE with a developer who knows what he's doing that has a problem with this site.

www.wikipedia.org has huge issues.

Palem, I did say with a developer who KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING. Developers who know what they are doing know better than to try this.

Our devs are quite competent, thanks. Seans last company was demonware, where he was CTO.

And Bishop, no, the problem is in your understanding (or lack of understanding) on how TCP/IP works. There is no requirement that every device have it's own IP address - and in fact, there are millions of devices connected to the internet which don't have their own addresses. There is nothing wrong with Singapore's configuration - except that it doesn't match YOUR desires. And there are thousands of companies right here in the U.S. with similar configurations. Most are small - but there are also many big ones - like IBM, Microsoft, Intel... Are you going to tell them their configuration is wrong also?

There certainly is a requirement for every device that connects to a net directly to have a unique IP address - thats the whole point of IP addresses. The issue with some SG ips is that they are ran through a proxy server that doesnt send XFF headers. Most ISPs that do this send XFF headers and have no issues. The issue lies completely with the SG ISPs.

IBM, MS and Intel are indeed big companies. Well done for getting that part right. They are not, however ISPs, so we don't really care how they configure their internal IPs. I dont really know why you brought them up.

The rest of the world is not going to change how TCP/IP works just to satisfy you.

This makes no sense either. We aren't asking the rest of the world to change, they are fine. The only reason this even slightly affects some SG players some of the time is because their ISPs aren't running a tight ship.

If you spent 5 minutes googling you would have known all of this.

[Napoleon]

I reiterate, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about because a lot of your statements are plain wrong or nonsensical. For someone that claims over 4 decades of experience i find some of the statements you have made to be unbelievable. Lets break it down a bit, though I suspect you are just trying to stir up **** as "revenge" for you getting an earlier ban.

First of all, I don't care about the ban. I just understand the source.

They aren't configured right (and the legality of them means 0 here) - their XFF headers aren't set on all their ranges. This means that some of them act as an anonymizing service. FYI this problem is know and acknowledged by SG players.

XFF headers are optional. There is no requirement they be sent.

If you claim there is a requirement that they be sent, please identify the RFC which states such.,

There are not "many" ISPs that have their servers configured this way.

It doesn't matter how many ISPs include an optional item. It is optional.

www.wikipedia.org has huge issues.

And those issues are? Exactly what in the article I pointed you to is incorrect?

Our devs are quite competent, thanks. Seans last company was demonware, where he was CTO.

We will have to disagree on that, as indicated by so much since they took over Utopia.

There certainly is a requirement for every device that connects to a net directly to have a unique IP address - thats the whole point of IP addresses. The issue with some SG ips is that they are ran through a proxy server that doesnt send XFF headers. Most ISPs that do this send XFF headers and have no issues. The issue lies completely with the SG ISPs.

No, there is not - as indicated in the Wikipedia article I pointed you to. Proxy servers are very common.

Did you even bother to read the article?

IBM, MS and Intel are indeed big companies. Well done for getting that part right. They are not, however ISPs, so we don't really care how they configure their internal IPs. I dont really know why you brought them up.

They are their own ISPs, for their own systems.

This makes no sense either. We aren't asking the rest of the world to change, they are fine. The only reason this even slightly affects some SG players some of the time is because their ISPs aren't running a tight ship.

No, you are asking the rest of the world to conform to your (incorrect) understanding of how things should work.

If you spent 5 minutes googling you would have known all of this.

I know exactly what's going on.

And for instance - in my office here I have 14 computers, printers, scanners, etc. all on the network - each with their own IP address. However, external to my office every device here looks to have the same IP address.

And it works great.

[DHaran]

I read your article Napoleon, and I'm not very tech-savvy but I notice this under the "Drawbacks" section:

Some Internet service providers (ISPs), especially in India, Russia, parts of Asia and other "developing" regions provide their customers only with "local" IP addresses, due to a limited number of external IP addresses allocated to those entities[citation needed]. Thus, these customers must access services external to the ISP's network through NAT. As a result, the customers cannot achieve true end-to-end connectivity, in violation of the core principles of the Internet as laid out by the Internet Architecture Board[citation needed].

That sounds like the problem SG is having, correct me if I'm wrong there Bishop. So I think your article only confirms that it's a problem with those ISPs, Napoleon, not Utopia.

[Bishop]

First of all, I don't care about the ban. I just understand the source.



XFF headers are optional. There is no requirement they be sent.

If you claim there is a requirement that they be sent, please identify the RFC which states such.,

I said that we dont care about the legal requirements to provide these headers. A properly configured server will send them.

It doesn't matter how many ISPs include an optional item. It is optional.

You were the one that made the point that "many" ISPs act in this manner - this is not true. The vast majority of ISPs that route their users through a proxy gateway send XFF headers.

And those issues are? Exactly what in the article I pointed you to is incorrect?

Wikipedia has issues in that if a single user acts up and gets banned it can result in a significant portion of SG getting banned. Thats why they maintain and use a list of ISPs that send reliable xff headers.

Here is a wikimedia article discussing this issue - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project

We will have to disagree on that, as indicated by so much since they took over Utopia.

The current devs stopped the playerbase declining and are actively investing in the game. You are free to disagree however, but unless you earned 1 mill for a company you set up in uni, then went on to be CTO of a company bought for 15 million and whos software is used by over 190 million users I am going to think Sean and co have an idea of what they are doing

No, there is not - as indicated in the Wikipedia article I pointed you to. Proxy servers are very common.

Not correct as it pertains to what the issue is here. SG ISPs are one of teh few ISPs worldwide that do not send XFF headers for all their ranges - and remember, they have them enabled for some so its not like they dont know about the issue.

Did you even bother to read the article?

I am familiar with NAT, thanks.

They are their own ISPs, for their own systems.

They are not public ISPs and are not relevant, and as a v-dash for MS specialising in WS08R2 i am familiar with their network setups.

No, you are asking the rest of the world to conform to your (incorrect) understanding of how things should work.

The rest of teh world already do confirm to this industry standard. Why do you not understand this?

I know exactly what's going on.

Then you explain yourself poorly.

And for instance - in my office here I have 14 computers, printers, scanners, etc. all on the network - each with their own IP address. However, external to my office every device here looks to have the same IP address.

And it works great.

Singapore has more than 14 computers.