| alright, now I think I've thought about it enough and realized what netlive's problem may be....
Maybe the PTR's, etc aren't all setup correctly. There's a good chance your upstream provider doesn't have anything more than placeholders (if anything at all), causing your reverse DNS to fail.
In all honesty, I've run mail servers out of various apartments like this for years, and always behind a NAT'd, DHCP'd network. It's cool in that I assign IP's on the devices that stay on the network, while allowing a certain set (say, all .20's) to remain DHCP assigned for LAN parties, etc. I've even had DNS servers running off those connections, but I've always made sure my upstream provider (the one that owns the netblock I'm in) was providing forwarding with proper PTR's setup to point to my A records.
AOL used to have some kinda reverse resolver thing that would tell you if your reverse DNS was setup correctly. I'm sure you can google it and find it or something similar.
But in all seriousness, netlive, it's more than likely foul DNS causing your issue and nothing to do with how your IP address is assigned. Again, your configuration may be fine, but your upstream would need to have their end configured as well.
I read your SinTel review, and I've got to agree with another poster...the entire experience sounds ill. I feel your pain, as I've certainly had my share of bad ISP experiences, and SinTel is no exception (man, I used to *hate* their billing dept), but at the end of the day I'm glad you found someone that could provide specifically what you needed.
I think Nunya should at least give it a shot, as support@centurytel.net and this forum are only a few clicks away  |
| I have nothing against you DJBuzz. Since you've read my CT review you know that for the better part of 2 months I had no other option than to try every hack possible in a vain attempt to make my situation work. It just wasn't going to happen. I knew going in that I was in the top 1% of cases where hacks (or "work-arounds" if you prefer) weren't going to work, which is why I spoke with a dozen different CT reps at all levels to confirm that their services were described accurately. I carefully explained my situation over and over again just to make sure there was no confusion over terminology. It wasn't until I actually went to set up service that I came to find out everything I had been told was a lie, and that conveniently they had "no records of me ever calling them" about the issue.
So yeah, I'm still really raw about the whole static vs sticky thing, especially after being lied to so thoroughly by a major ISP about it. I don't care what work-arounds you can implement for sticky IPs, they still aren't static IPs. For 90% or more of the people out there this doesn't make a difference, but that still doesn't mean you can describe them as interchangeable because they aren't in all cases. That is the entire substance of my ongoing argument.
And I will be updating my CT review shortly as I am learning even more about CenturyTel's situation here, and believe it or not it gets even uglier. |
