I've talked to a few people (Telemach customers) who told me it happens every now and then, they call the support center that tells them to restart the modem (even if they'd done it before) and then the connection magically works at full speed again.
Could it just be that it all goes through Telekom Slovenije who does some weird load balancing? Definitely worth an investigation, but ZPS might be a better address for this than AKOS.
Article 7.2 of their terms of service https://telemach.si/download/terms/splosni-pogoji-poslovanja...
> Naročnik se obvezuje, da po priključitvi na omrežje izvajalca: > ... > * ne bo postavljal strežnikov na svoji lokaciji, razen v primeru sklenitve ustreznega dogovora z izvajalcem, > ...
It states that customers are bound not to setup servers on their internet connection point without prior aproval by the ISP. It sounds against the law to forbid this, albeit ianal.
Would you also say your mobile phone operator is violating net neutrality by putting you behind CGNAT that you can't forward arbitrary ports through? You can pay a bunch of money to get a private APN and get public IPv4 addresses. Would you call that an unblock fee?
In France, CG-NAT is getting widespread even for fixed, FTTH links. I'm typing this connected to SFR, which provides a static IPv6 /56, but IPv4 is behind CG-NAT. I can't host anything on IPv4. I think there's an option to get a fixed, internet routable address, but not on the "discount" plan I'm on. I hear you maybe can ask support to get you out of CG-NAT, but that doesn't seem very reliable.
Free (local ISP), by default, doesn't give a static IP for fiber, but you can ask for one for free through your online account page (you just need to tick a box).
Why does that seem reasonable to you? Why should dynamic IPs not be able to receive incoming connections? It costs them nothing to let those packets through.
> disingenuous
Bad.
> Would you also say your mobile phone operator is violating net neutrality by putting you behind CGNAT that you can't forward arbitrary ports through?
CGNAT is pretty awful, but at least there's a reason for connections to fail.
But sure, if I had control I would mandate that CGNAT lets you forward ports. Maybe you don't always control the external port, but there shouldn't be any other compromises.
> You can pay a bunch of money to get a private APN and get public IPv4 addresses. Would you call that an unblock fee?
That's a workaround to get a different connection, not an unblock, so no.
If you get static, you keep that IP for a while. You suffer the consequences of your bad setup, you have to deal with FW vendors and after you leave, the IP will be offline for long enough that it will probably "cool off".
And secondly, while I don't like it, we need to keep in mind net neutrality was not written for selfhosters. It was written so an ISP can't zero-rate their own streaming service, or block their competitors. It was about internet access, not internet participation. The ownerwhelmimg majority of people are not and don't care to be "on" the internet, they want to "access" things that are on the internet. That's why NAT is still everywhere.
Define quickly? My modem stays attached on the same IP for months at a time.
> so if one customer get an IP onto a bunch of firewall blocklists
That can happen anyway! Most of those are based on outgoing connections!
> a bunch of other angry customers as well as beg all the firewall vendors to unblock those IPs
Does this happen today on the huge number of ISPs that let you open ports on a dynamic IP? I'm not aware of it.
> we need to keep in mind net neutrality was not written for selfhosters
Well I'm not really focused on the idea of net neutrality, just whether it's reasonable to make customers unconnectable, and I say it's not reasonable.
There are no sane and legitimate reasons for running an SMTP server on a residential connection. Even most server providers will block it unless you give them some very good reasons.
Blocking 53 is just weird though.
Although the GP wrote "53/tcp" that is a weird situation, because most (not all) DNS is over UDP.
One day I suddenly found my DNS resolver logs were very active with veritable gibberish. And it seems that my router had been pwned and joined some sort of nefarious botnet.
I only found this out because I was using NextDNS at the time, and my router's own resolver was pointed there, and NextDNS was keeping meticulous, detailed logs of every query.
So I nipped it in the bud, by determining which device it was, by ruling out other devices, and by replacing the infected demon router with a safe one.
But yeah, if your 53/udp or 25/tcp is open, you can pretty much expect to join a botnet of the DNS or SMTP-spam varieties.
Restricting ports also doesn't mitigate it, as a port scanner can easily find out I'm running this or that vulnerable server software on a non-standard port.
It's none of the ISP's business to restrict the ports I should be using.
There is no such thing. A connection to the internet should be equal to any other connection to the internet, modulo BGP peering. Noone has a right to dictate what services I run or don't run, what protocols I speak or don't speak, what traffic I accept or deny, but *me*. That's the whole point of being on the internet rather than Prodigy or Compuserve or something.
The physical location of that connection is irrelevant. Maybe I feel my servers are safer in a datacenter. Maybe I feel they're safer in my basement. In my case, it is very much the latter, and again, you don't get to make that call. I do.
It's not your connection. It's your ISPs. They are also their IPs.
> Noone has a right to dictate what services I run or don't run, what protocols I speak or don't speak, what traffic I accept or deny, but me. That's the whole point of being on the internet rather than Prodigy or Compuserve or something.
Then become your own ISP. Get an ASN (easy), acquire your own IPv4 and IPv6 space (also easy, but v4 is expensive), get a commercial connection that'll allow for BGP, and go ahead, do whatever you want with your IP addresses.
> The physical location of that connection is irrelevant.
It's not about the physical location, it's about who's IP addresses are you using. If they are not yours, the service provider has every right to restrict what you do with them.