[noCensorship] Re: KSA proxies
- From: wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nocensorship@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Nov 2002 18:38:01 -0000
> From: "aasa37" <aasa37@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <nocensorship@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [noCensorship] Re: KSA proxies
[..ramadan raves :-)..]
> statProxy v4.95 report from 213.184.x.x:
Akkk! What's that address?
Poland?
You *must* test from within your ISP.
> 212.93.193.87 :8080 PFFFPPPPPPPPPFFPFP 1.1/6.3
> 212.93.193.76 :8080 PFFFPFPPPPPPPFFPFP 1.0/4.3
> 212.93.194.244 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.194.114 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.200.218 :80 PFFFFFFPFFFFPFFPFP 2.5/17.4
> 212.93.193.81 :8080 PFFFPFPPPPPPPFFPFP 1.0/6.3
> 212.93.193.132 :8080 T ?/?
> 212.93.193.86 :8080 T ?/?
> 212.93.200.226 :80 AFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFF 0.6/?
> 212.93.193.138 :8080 PFFFFFFPFFFFPPFPFP 4.0/27.9
> 212.93.194.163 :80 PFFFPPPPPPPPPPFPFP 4.1/7.7
> 212.93.193.77 :8080 PFFFPFPPPPPPPFFPFP 1.0/6.7
> 212.93.193.88 :8080 PFFFPFPPPPPPPFFPFP 1.0/6.1
> 212.93.193.82 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.199.106 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.194.245 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.203.254 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.195.56 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.198.146 :8080 T ?/?
> 212.93.204.194 :80 PFFFPFPPPPPPPPFPFP 5.6/11.0
> 212.93.193.83 :80 T ?/?
> 212.93.193.89 :8080 PFFFPFPPPPPPPFFPFP 1.0/4.2
> 212.93.193.85 :8080 T ?/?
> Reference page size was 13744 bytes
Great. I ran your data with a high priority (since it's the only
good AwalNet data I have!) and ended up with these that should be
usable by you.
$ ./extractHosts.pl - isEnabled firewall=KSA-awalnet
212.93.193.77:8080
212.93.193.88:8080
212.93.200.226:80 (needs authentication)
212.93.200.218:80
212.93.193.89:8080
212.93.193.138:8080
212.93.193.81:8080
212.93.194.163:80
212.93.204.194:80
212.93.200.218:3128 (still there because it was skipped - see below)
212.93.193.76:8080
212.93.193.87:8080
12 hosts appended to -
> The following 1 proxies were
> rejected because safe mode is on (-u to turn it off):
> 212.93.200.218:3128: duplicate host
You can safely test this one separately. SP just avoids multiple
hits on the same host in safe mode. You already hit it on port 80
in the tests above.
Please let me know the results if you do it.
Thanks for all of the above. It pointed out a firewall subnet
misconfiguration I've had from the beginning for Awalnet.
And some of these proxies are now accessible from outside,
so the proxy database got updated to show that.
> > > Roundtrip time to 64.83.129.10, average = 469ms, min = 441ms, max =
> 498ms --
> > > 09-Nov-02 9:11:15 PM
> >
> > With that kind of rtt, geostationary satellite internet must look
> > very attractive :-)
>
> :-)
> how come you did not talk about DSL and chose satellite internet ? i mean
> , is satellite internet better than DSL ? i thought the opposit !?
Geostationary sat has a high latency that can't be improved.
It's dependent on the their fixed altitude (36000km above the equator)
and the speed of light time to travel the oblique distance to it from
you. At least 250 msec added to queuing times in all the routers etc.
The high latency you're seeing on (what are probably) land-lines
above would be largely due to the number of routers KSA has in the
path and the long line to the USA. You could iprove the first
component of that with DSL maybe, but not the last part (assuming
DSL users use the same line)
So ... whereas a USA user would look at that geostat sat latency
and throw up his hands in horror, for you it looks as good (better!)
as your current situation. :-)
> DSL is offered here now with these prices :
> 1- around 300 USD for instellation fees and a modem , one non-returnable
> payment ,
> 2- around 300 USD monthly payment ( 128 kbps , they say 33kB min garanteed
> for downloading )
Dunno about USA prices now, but UAE prices are a fraction of
your ripoff prices. About $70 per month.
Though download rate sounds the same, they can't do it with that
128Kb/sec bandwidth. Something's wrong with those specs, I think.
It would need to be double that.
> 3- 3 weeks min till the service is provided .
>
> How is this compared to DSL in usa or canada ?
> And just to make sure :-) , we will be able to use the same methods to
> bypass , correct ?
Certainly shell techniques would be the same.
CONNECT via your ISP proxies would depend on which proxies they
allow you to access but probably the same.
> thank you .
And you.
--
wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://proxytools.sourceforge.net/
===8>============== noCensorship community ===============
List's webpage: //www.freelists.org/webpage/nocensorship
List's archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/nocensorship
To unsubscribe: nocensorship-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
SUBJECT field.
Moderator's email: nocensorship-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
===8>============== noCensorship community ===============
Other related posts:
