Related
I am seriously frustrated here:
I have an Ameo 16 GB (T-Mobile UK) and for the 1st couple of weeks remote desktop was working fine, then suddenly it stopped working.
I thought I broke the settings somewhere, so I double-checked everything. The T-Mobile Ameo comes with the default T-Mobile Internet connection pre-configured. It actually states "This connection is pre-configured. It cannot be modified."
The default settings are programs that auto connect to the Net should connect using the default T-Mobile Internet connection, and programs that auto-connect to a private network should use "My Work Network".
"My Work Network" has no values set anywhere.
Normal Internet access is fine in either IE or Opera (branded by T-Mobile as Web'n'Walk).
I have changed so programs that auto-connect to private network use T-Mobile Internet connection, same result as before.
I have set up a custom Internet connection for "My Work Network" using "general.t-mobile.uk" as access point, "user" as username, "pass" as password and domain left blank. I can connect to the Internet with these settings, but not via Remote Desktop.
Sometimes, normally after having re-booted the Amea and manually connected to "My Work Network" (as per settings above) I can connect, but it drops the connection while I'm still typing in username and password.
Normally I get either of these error messages when trying to connect via Remote Desktop:
"Cannot connect. Likely reasons are:
1) Specified computer name or ip does not exist.
2) A network error occurred while establishing the connection"
or
"Cannot connect with current connection settings. To change your connection settings, tap Settings".
I have cleared storage memory on the Ameo five times. I have phoned T-Mobile tech support who basically told me to sod off - apparently as long as the device can browse the Net they've done their job!
I have had T-Mobile replace the device and this morning I received a brand-spanking-new Ameo. I fired it up, let it go through the customisations, and reboot, then I tried Remote Desktop without changing anything or installing anything. And I got the same as above!!!!!
Please, guys, I'm desperate! Any help is very welcome here! I do network support for a living and I got the Ameo because I can fit a server's entire screen in and have a seperate keyboard. Except now I can't use it!
I used to have a Universal, which I sold to help finance the Ameo, so I'm truly stuck!
Oh how I wish I could unlock the damn thing and flash a better ROM to it!
Just as an update, yes, I've tried using "My ISP" as well, with the same results. And yes, everything's just peachy on the servers I need to connect to - I can connect to those servers using other devices.
And no, using Logmein is NOT an option and please don't even mention any form of VNC - you have to be seriously foolish to run VNC on a server, you might as well pay for some banner ads that say "Come hack me!"
Please don't give me advice on setting up routers, or Remote Desktop on 2000 Server, Server 2003 or Server 2008. I can do those quite well.
What I cannot do is get my damn Ameo to connect and stay connected and I'm absolutely desperate for help there!
the same
my ameo on t-mobile has done same thing, stopped working about 2 weeks ago, was working fine till then, only reason i bought the damn thing (anmd yes, i too ebayed my exec, i regretting it
so anyone out there got any ideas? i have same problem using ICS so i am guessing either a network etting on the phone, or some idiot at t has closed rdp traffic (tried chanmging a port number to 80 on a test box behind my router, still no go)
What is the operating system on the target pc first off. as i had that problem with a hack fix on vista home premium
all i had to do was to re-apply the fix.
as far as remote desktop the Ameo 8gb model ( x7500) didn't have rdp on it so i used one of the ones from this forum but under another section ( i think it was networking but do s earch to find them )
needless to say mine has never stopped working
a good test is try it from your local wireless home network if it's a home pc, and if ti works then look at the forwards on your router, make sure 3398 is still forwarding to YOUR pc and that your pc still has the same IP.
if you have a static ip and no router. always check your firewall settings.
as far as other possibles if your internet is working and all other data connections then there's no reason it SHOULDN'T work as t-mobile do not filter out 3389 port.
it has to be a problem at the target machine or network in that case.
but feel free to tell us more about the target pc and how it's connected to the internet and maybe we can find a solution
also what RDP client are you using on your Ameo
Cyberjak, the target machines vary: Server 2003 Enterprise Edition running ISA Server 2006, and Server 2008.
RRAS is installed on the non-ISA servers, while ISA of course takes over where RRAS left off. In all cases ports 3389 (TC{P & UDP) is open for inbound access, and on the ISA box it is open for in and outbound access.
Had you read what I wrote in my second post you would have seen I need no help in setting up RDP. I build, support and maintain networks for a living and trust me when I say the issue is NOT with the remote servers, but with the Ameo! I can use a collegue's O2 Touch Diamond and connect to any of the servers, but not the Ameo 16 GB.
I'm using a default T-Mobile Windows Mobile 6.1 setup as my Ameo has never been unlocked or flashed, and I'm using the stock standard Remote Desktop client that came pre-loaded and that used to work.
The issue is either with the Ameo, or with T-Mobile blocking RDP.
NanoRuler said:
Oh how I wish I could unlock the damn thing and flash a better ROM to it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why can't you do this? Is your phone owned by the company and they would frown if you modified it? AP4 includes Remote Desktop Mobile, so you might try that ROM if you do unlock.
My device is a 7510 and Olipro's unlocker doesn't work on it. I have been explicitly told that the unlocker might brick it
Hallelujah! The age of miracles is upon us!
I've put in a complaint to T-Mobile, and out of the blue Remote Desktop started working, while I also received an e-mail from T-Mobile's tech support.
Here's an extract from the e-mail:
"I have came across someone else with this problem and we are trying a temporary fix by adding a update to your account which is on now, so if you could retry the connection and let me know how you get on"
My translation of the message: We screwed up by choking RDP to save bandwidth across our network, you (and presumably others) caught us out, so now we'll pretend we're the good guys and that we've discovered something wrong and we'll fix it, but don't expect us to say sorry!
I will give T-Mobile a ring today and see, I guessed it would be t-mobile as I ave a whole range of different RDP servers I connect to and none worked!
lol, T-Mobile took all of about 2 minutes to enable my RDP again, told them I knew it was there prob as I read on XDA-Developers, got to love the internet nice one NanoRuler
NanoRuler said:
Hallelujah! The age of miracles is upon us!
I've put in a complaint to T-Mobile, and out of the blue Remote Desktop started working, while I also received an e-mail from T-Mobile's tech support.
Here's an extract from the e-mail:
"I have came across someone else with this problem and we are trying a temporary fix by adding a update to your account which is on now, so if you could retry the connection and let me know how you get on"
My translation of the message: We screwed up by choking RDP to save bandwidth across our network, you (and presumably others) caught us out, so now we'll pretend we're the good guys and that we've discovered something wrong and we'll fix it, but don't expect us to say sorry!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RDP Port filtering or NAT misconfigured !
bhermer said:
lol, T-Mobile took all of about 2 minutes to enable my RDP again, told them I knew it was there prob as I read on XDA-Developers, got to love the internet nice one NanoRuler
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just realised what T-Mobile said in their e-mail "I have came across someone else with this problem" - was that you? That WOULD be funny!
Way I look at it if we don't stick together we'll get shafted by big corporations!
Used to know a guy who had something printed on the reverse of some of his business cards. It read "Doing business with your firm is like having sex: it gives one a feeling of warm bliss.....while being screwed!"
Thanks to T-Mobile I know what that feels like! Having said that I'll also categorically state the last guy I dealt with at T-Mobile knows his stuff and was very helpful.
Curious, it does lead to believe something about the ports being like group policy's that they use as the voice over ip ports only are open for WnW Max customers usually unless you scream at them after being with them for a long time. heheh
Nano, no offence mate but i've been doing similar work for years as well but it's sometimes the simple things so you can understand me asking.
you would ask a client the same thing.
NanoRuler said:
Hallelujah! The age of miracles is upon us!
I've put in a complaint to T-Mobile, and out of the blue Remote Desktop started working, while I also received an e-mail from T-Mobile's tech support.
Here's an extract from the e-mail:
"I have came across someone else with this problem and we are trying a temporary fix by adding a update to your account which is on now, so if you could retry the connection and let me know how you get on"
My translation of the message: We screwed up by choking RDP to save bandwidth across our network, you (and presumably others) caught us out, so now we'll pretend we're the good guys and that we've discovered something wrong and we'll fix it, but don't expect us to say sorry!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A possible solution for those of us on T-Mobile's standard web n walk
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I thought I'd post my experiences here in case anyone else (like me) searches for a solution to enabling RDP on T-Mobile (UK at least).
I was having the same problem with remote desktop, it saying that the server was not available. I phoned up T-Mobile's helpdesk as recommended here and after getting past first line support (who didn't know what remote desktop was, and tried sending new connection settings to my phone to resolve the issue) I got through to someone who knew what they were talking about. Turns out that I'm on T-Mobile's "basic" or "handset-only" web-n-walk package, and it's not possible to use RDP on this. I assume they block the relevant ports. They told me that I could pay an extra fiver a month to upgrade to a version of web-n-walk which can handle RDP.
Well I told them I would think about it, but instead tried to find a way around it as the one or two times I need to use RDP are certainly not worth a fiver a month. My solution is probably only suitable for the more techy of us, but without much work and with no prior experience I managed to set up a SSH tunnel using FreeSSHd as a server running on my windows server (although a normal windows box should work fine - http://www.freesshd.com/) and zaTunnel as a client on my phone (http://www.zatelnet.com/zatunnel/main.php). Both programs are free.
Basically my phone takes all RDP connections and tunnels them over SSH to my windows server, which then turns them back into RDP connections. T-Mobile have no idea I'm using RDP, and if they block the SSH port in the future I can always change FreeSSHd to run on port 80 (for web). This will also work for other protocols T-Mobile might be blocking (FTP springs to mind).
Just thought I'd post this in case anyone was in my situation of needing RDP on their standard web'n'walk.
Cool! Thanks for posting your rather excellent work-around! I will certainly be referring people back to your solution.
I think T-Mobile's out of order for not allowing RDP on all plans, without absolutely clearly stating that on some plans it isn't allowed.
You're the customer and you pay for some bandwidth. Short of illegal activities, what you use that bandwidth for is none of their business.
T-Mobile Grrrr
Many Thanks for this thread.
My Remote Desktop stopped working on my phone last month but co-incidently it was around the time I was re-intsalling my server and also flashing numerous roms to my phone so thought it maybe something with that.
But then realised I could remote desktop over my wireless at home and from other networks across the net so it wasn't anything to do with config on my side. Thought either phone or network.
Flashed a rom with remote desktop that i KNEW worked and still nothing...
Thought - this MUST be T-Mobile... glad I'm not the only one.
Have sent an email and hopefully they'll enable Remote Desktop on my line.
There is no way I'm gonna start paying an extra £5 a month for something I've been using for the last 20 months as part of my package and have removed wihtout any notice/warning.
i'll tell 'em where to shove their £5 extra a month
I have never got any app that hosts web page to work when I'm using mobile connection.
Wlan connection always works and another users seem to get it working using mobile connection.
Same problem with all ROMs that I have used. How to fix?
Mehumummo said:
I have never got any app that hosts web page to work when I'm using mobile connection.
Wlan connection always works and another users seem to get it working using mobile connection.
Same problem with all ROMs that I have used. How to fix?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ummm. What network are you on? Remember most networks use NAT so save IP addresses. So your web server might only work for other users on the same subnet of your provider.
A phone isn't an ideal server. Can't you spend $1 or so per month on shared hosting on a server somewhere?
This is why it works on WiFI, as you have a dedicated IP address.
How can an incoming connection to 155.55.55.55 (for example, which covers all your network's users) know to direct an incoming port 80 (web) request to your phone? As opposed to the many other people that would try this?
I think Vodafone UK gives individual Ips though, so you could switch provider if it matters
anon2122 said:
Ummm. What network are you on? Remember most networks use NAT so save IP addresses. So your web server might only work for other users on the same subnet of your provider.
A phone isn't an ideal server. Can't you spend $1 or so per month on shared hosting on a server somewhere?
This is why it works on WiFI, as you have a dedicated IP address.
How can an incoming connection to 155.55.55.55 (for example, which covers all your network's users) know to direct an incoming port 80 (web) request to your phone? As opposed to the many other people that would try this?
I think Vodafone UK gives individual Ips though, so you could switch provider if it matters
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do know what NAT is (as it always ruins everything). I was not aware that mobile connection uses NAT as I imagined that operators doesn't put their users under same ip.
I'm not hosting something that any server could, mostly access to my phone:
files, sms, remote usage etc.
So there is no way but change operator?
Mehumummo said:
I do know what NAT is (as it always ruins everything). I was not aware that mobile connection uses NAT as I imagined that operators doesn't put their users under same ip.
I'm not hosting something that any server could, mostly access to my phone:
files, sms, remote usage etc.
So there is no way but change operator?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-mobile definitely uses nat, as I have tried to ssh into my phone etc. I needed to make a listen server and dial into it from the phone.
So what you are doing needs a unique ip or upnp support (which I doubt android can do). But also it needs an isp that don't block ports or anything.
We use vodafone sims for remotely connecting to remote wind farms, as it allows incoming radmin connections.
anon2122 said:
So what you are doing needs a unique ip or upnp support (which I doubt android can do).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess that no operator supports UPnP/IGD to poke holes in their NAT.
If it's only for transferring files, SwiFTP supports a proxy server that is provided by the author. SwiFTP doesn't support SSL, and I don't think that I would want to send the plain text password to my phone over the Internet.
Another possibility is a VPN from the phone to the PC or router. Than you can start a server like kWS, Android Desktop, PAW Server, I-Jetty, WebFileSystem, etc.
VPN sounds good, gonna try when I get to home.
I can get connection using vpn.
However if there are no connection for short time or phone is restarted then vpn connection goes away.
I would like it to reconnect asap but it isn't meant to be that way :/
Couldn't find anything to reconnect vpn.
I didn't try the built-in VPNs (Android 2.1), but it works fine with OpenVPN: even when changing from Wifi to 3G it reconnects after a few seconds. You need root for OpenVPN AFAIK. It works great with VillainROM 12 which comes with OpenVPN. There's a guide at the VillainROM forums.
Thanks got it working
Lol huge decrease to battery life, suppose you don't have any hints for that?
Connect a wifi only tab via adapter or whatever to an ethernet cable in hotel rooms that don't offer wireless?
I would suggest you to carry with you a small and cheap domestic WiFi router. You can easily connect it to the Ethernet port in your hotel room and configure it as a WiFi hotspot. Don't forget to disable the DNS, so the wireless devices will receive IP addresses directly from the Hotel's router (basically you are disabling the router functionality in your router and using it only as a "repeater").
I use this configuration at home to enhance WiFi coverage and it works fine.
dhuewes said:
I would suggest you to carry with you a small and cheap domestic WiFi router. You can easily connect it to the Ethernet port in your hotel room and configure it as a WiFi hotspot. Don't forget to disable the DNS, so the wireless devices will receive IP addresses directly from the Hotel's router (basically you are disabling the router functionality in your router and using it only as a "repeater").
I use this configuration at home to enhance WiFi coverage and it works fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Being Cisco CCNP certified I am disturbed at this post.
1. Routers do not do DNS. You need to disable DHCP so that the router does not hand out IP addresses as you dont know what address range the hotel is using and to avoid ip conflicts if you are on the same network range.
2. You are not disabling the router functionality you are simply not using it. You are connecting the switch portion (not the WAN port) of the router to the wall jack of the hotel. With DHCP disabled and the switch connected to the hotel you now can use the wireless router as an access point. This configuration does not act as a "repeater" in any sense.
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions Thanks
Moving to Q&A
5thElement said:
Being Cisco CCNP certified I am disturbed at this post.
1. Routers do not do DNS. You need to disable DHCP so that the router does not hand out IP addresses as you dont know what address range the hotel is using and to avoid ip conflicts if you are on the same network range.
2. You are not disabling the router functionality you are simply not using it. You are connecting the switch portion (not the WAN port) of the router to the wall jack of the hotel. With DHCP disabled and the switch connected to the hotel you now can use the wireless router as an access point. This configuration does not act as a "repeater" in any sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure your certification is just as valid as your hidden microSD card, the Tegra 3 tablets you have personally used, and the custom kernel and Touchwiz black taskbar you are developing.
1. Routers DO do DNS. Most cheap consumer routers run a DNS service. The DHCP leases they hand out contain the router's LAN IP as the DNS server. The DNS server on the router handles any requests dealing with the local LAN. Anything beyond that the router's DNS forwards to the ISP's DNS server.
Also you don't need to do any of this to get it working. Just plug the router's WAN/internet port in and go. The router will do its own NATing, assign an IP to the tab, and the tab will be able to browse the internet just fine.
You CAN plug the router into the switch port and you CAN disable DHCP, but why add the extra steps and complications?
EvoXOhio said:
I'm sure your certification is just as valid as your hidden microSD card, the Tegra 3 tablets you have personally used, and the custom kernel and Touchwiz black taskbar you are developing.
1. Routers DO do DNS. Most cheap consumer routers run a DNS service. The DHCP leases they hand out contain the router's LAN IP as the DNS server. The DNS server on the router handles any requests dealing with the local LAN. Anything beyond that the router's DNS forwards to the ISP's DNS server.
Also you don't need to do any of this to get it working. Just plug the router's WAN/internet port in and go. The router will do its own NATing, assign an IP to the tab, and the tab will be able to browse the internet just fine.
You CAN plug the router into the switch port and you CAN disable DHCP, but why add the extra steps and complications?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WOW. You need to read up about networking.
1. Most if not ALL home/portable routers do NOT do DNS. I have yet to see one from any home router Mfr. You are confused because you have no knowledge of NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Unless you have a standalone DNS server (which is NOT in the router) on your internal network your PCs resolve names amongst themselves with NetBIOS over TCP/IP via broadcasts. The router sends its ip address as the DNS server because its the GATEWAY. It has no records or any knowledge to translate IP addresses to any DNS names all it does it forward the request out to real DNS servers on the internet or ISP network.
2. Please refrain from questioning my knowledge. Plugging in the WAN port into a hotel port is a bad idea. If the hotel network is the same as the wireless routers the WAN port will NOT obtain an IP address and you will have no connection to the internet. Since most hotel use the standard 192.168.0.0 or 192.168.1.0 networks you have a 50/50 chance you will get no connection. Nobody is going to play that kind of stupid guessing game. Thats the wrong way of doing it.
5thElement said:
Please refrain from questioning my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the funniest thing I've seen you type!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using xda premium
5thElement said:
Please refrain from questioning my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't post.
It's a public forum, you cannot dictate what other people say - if you don't want people questioning things you say, the only way to prevent that is not to say them in the first place.
Oh and welcome to the internet
5thElement said:
Being Cisco CCNP certified I am disturbed at this post.
1. Routers do not do DNS. You need to disable DHCP so that the router does not hand out IP addresses as you dont know what address range the hotel is using and to avoid ip conflicts if you are on the same network range.
2. You are not disabling the router functionality you are simply not using it. You are connecting the switch portion (not the WAN port) of the router to the wall jack of the hotel. With DHCP disabled and the switch connected to the hotel you now can use the wireless router as an access point. This configuration does not act as a "repeater" in any sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey 5th check these links out http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-Linksys-WTR54GS-Wireless-Travel-Speedbooster/dp/B000A1AQOO
http://www.pcworld.com/article/117535/mobile_computing_make_a_hotel_room_wireless.html
Djbigz - you have options buddy
5thElement said:
WOW. You need to read up about networking.
1. Most if not ALL home/portable routers do NOT do DNS. I have yet to see one from any home router Mfr. You are confused because you have no knowledge of NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Unless you have a standalone DNS server (which is NOT in the router) on your internal network your PCs resolve names amongst themselves with NetBIOS over TCP/IP via broadcasts. The router sends its ip address as the DNS server because its the GATEWAY. It has no records or any knowledge to translate IP addresses to any DNS names all it does it forward the request out to real DNS servers on the internet or ISP network.
2. Please refrain from questioning my knowledge. Plugging in the WAN port into a hotel port is a bad idea. If the hotel network is the same as the wireless routers the WAN port will NOT obtain an IP address and you will have no connection to the internet. Since most hotel use the standard 192.168.0.0 or 192.168.1.0 networks you have a 50/50 chance you will get no connection. Nobody is going to play that kind of stupid guessing game. Thats the wrong way of doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look, dude. We're all pretty frustrated with your trolling posts here. I get the feeling you're developmentally disabled or autistic. That's OK, I'm not saying that those are bad things, I just think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the point of a forum. This is a community, people who share information freely because it fulfills a need for human contact. It's a place to get together with like-minded individuals.
Let me try to change the tone for a second, and suggest how you could improve:
See, what happened in this thread was that someone asked a question (it was about getting internet access in a hotel room that had only wired connections). Another forum member answered with what he thought was a good solution. Your response, correct or incorrect, was directed at the answer, not the OP, and you didn't offer your own solution. All you sought was a chance to show that you know something and that someone else didn't. With all that Cisco certified networking knowledge, you could have offered the OP a solution; instead you decided to rant at another forum user.
I dare you to become a positive member of this community. In your next post, don't respond personally to me or to anyone else. Write a simple post about how you would solve the OP's problem. If you can't explain how something is done, provide a link to a website that can. I believe you're capable.
slack04 said:
See, what happened in this thread was that someone asked a question (it was about getting internet access in a hotel room that had only wired connections). Another forum member answered with what he thought was a good solution. Your response, correct or incorrect, was directed at the answer, not the OP, and you didn't offer your own solution. All you sought was a chance to show that you know something and that someone else didn't. With all that Cisco certified networking knowledge, you could have offered the OP a solution; instead you decided to rant at another forum user.
I dare you to become a positive member of this community. In your next post, don't respond personally to me or to anyone else. Write a simple post about how you would solve the OP's problem. If you can't explain how something is done, provide a link to a website that can. I believe you're capable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already did. The solution is in my first post. Seems like you only wanted to see what you wanted to see......
5thElement said:
I already did. The solution is in my first post. Seems like you only wanted to see what you wanted to see......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, I think you might be a bit autistic. I'm not judging you when I say this. Your "solution" was one line (turn off DHCP) with no context. The answer to "how do I get on the internet from my tab in a hotel room with wired internet" is not "turn off HDCP." You did not give any other instruction, and in fact you disguised it in a mound of flaming hatred toward the first person who answered the OP. That was unnecessary, and is not what people want in a "community."
Now, think about it in terms of math class: 1) A "solution" gets both you and the reader from raw problem all the way to final answer; and 2) You must show your work.
Give it another try. I believe you can do it.
5thElement said:
WOW. You need to read up about networking.
1. Most if not ALL home/portable routers do NOT do DNS. I have yet to see one from any home router Mfr. You are confused because you have no knowledge of NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Unless you have a standalone DNS server (which is NOT in the router) on your internal network your PCs resolve names amongst themselves with NetBIOS over TCP/IP via broadcasts. The router sends its ip address as the DNS server because its the GATEWAY. It has no records or any knowledge to translate IP addresses to any DNS names all it does it forward the request out to real DNS servers on the internet or ISP network.
2. Please refrain from questioning my knowledge. Plugging in the WAN port into a hotel port is a bad idea. If the hotel network is the same as the wireless routers the WAN port will NOT obtain an IP address and you will have no connection to the internet. Since most hotel use the standard 192.168.0.0 or 192.168.1.0 networks you have a 50/50 chance you will get no connection. Nobody is going to play that kind of stupid guessing game. Thats the wrong way of doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you weren't banned I'd write a detailed reply listing all the things wrong with your reply. Your networking knowledge is as real as the hidden microSD card in your tab. You know nothing about networking or tablets.
dhuewes said:
I would suggest you to carry with you a small and cheap domestic WiFi router. You can easily connect it to the Ethernet port in your hotel room and configure it as a WiFi hotspot. Don't forget to disable the DNS, so the wireless devices will receive IP addresses directly from the Hotel's router (basically you are disabling the router functionality in your router and using it only as a "repeater").
I use this configuration at home to enhance WiFi coverage and it works fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sadly this is what I do now just for this same instance. That and usually hotel WiFi is crap but Ethernet = good
---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------
evoxohio said:
if you weren't banned i'd write a detailed reply listing all the things wrong with your reply. Your networking knowledge is as real as the hidden microsd card in your tab. You know nothing about networking or tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
5thelement said:
being cisco ccnp certified i am disturbed at this post.
1. Routers do not do dns. You need to disable dhcp so that the router does not hand out ip addresses as you dont know what address range the hotel is using and to avoid ip conflicts if you are on the same network range.
2. You are not disabling the router functionality you are simply not using it. You are connecting the switch portion (not the wan port) of the router to the wall jack of the hotel. With dhcp disabled and the switch connected to the hotel you now can use the wireless router as an access point. This configuration does not act as a "repeater" in any sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahaha your funny when your wrong!!
drubin44 said:
Sadly this is what I do now just for this same instance. That and usually hotel WiFi is crap but Ethernet = good
---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------
hahaha your funny when your wrong!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try the DHCP-disabled method, connecting the wall port to any port on your router EXCEPT the WAN port (which must not be used... unless, of course, your router has the option to make the WAN port act as an extra switched port... DD-WRT is your friend lol)
I have found that setting my router up to use an existing network as its WAN connection results in severely throttled bandwidth. Each device connected to a router is allocated a fraction of the total bandwidth (including your router, which is seen by the hotel router as just another device, when connected via WAN). Your router also divides its bandwidth (which, at this point, is the bandwidth the hotel router gives to ONE device) amongst all devices connected to it. So a ten room hotel with all rooms' ports connected (not necessarily in active use) would give you roughly 1/10th of the total bandwidth to be divided amongst your devices. If you connected two devices, each would get 1/20th of the total bandwidth provided by the hotel's internet connection.
If you use the router as a switch (DHCP off, WAN port unused, everything else is almost irrelevant), then each device connected to your router would receive an equal share of bandwidth directly from the hotel router. So with the previous example, 10 rooms are connected, but your room has two devices. The hotel router would now see 11 devices (your router is transparent to the hotel's) so each of your devices would get roughly 1/11th of the total bandwidth - almost double what it would get with the method you currently use.
My math isn't completely precise, because there are other variables that cause fluctuations. But I spent three weeks testing different methods to do this with a "borrowed" network, and using the router as a switch, which is the method everyone attacked here, provided the best speeds and easiest setup.
Also, to the asshole that kept calling the knowledgeable guy "autistic" - people with autism are meticulous about the details, and are incapable of lying. He wouldn't post if he wasn't confident in his assertion, therefore he must have done his homework. Therefore, if you are correct about him being autistic, then he is probably correct about the method.
I say this because, if he is autistic and didn't know what he was saying, he probably wouldn't bother to post. It is human nature to shy away from things we don't understand, but average people are able to lie, and therefore able to "fake it." Autistics can't fake it, they either know and are willing to share, or have no idea and probably don't even give the subject any thought. You might argue that he only thinks he knows, but autistics are also meticulous about details. If any autistic person tells me they know something, I'm more likely to trust them than I would an average person. Your attempt at an insult undermines your attempt to contradict him.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
styles420 said:
Also, to the asshole that kept calling the knowledgeable guy "autistic" - people with autism are meticulous about the details, and are incapable of lying. He wouldn't post if he wasn't confident in his assertion, therefore he must have done his homework. Therefore, if you are correct about him being autistic, then he is probably correct about the method.
I say this because, if he is autistic and didn't know what he was saying, he probably wouldn't bother to post. It is human nature to shy away from things we don't understand, but average people are able to lie, and therefore able to "fake it." Autistics can't fake it, they either know and are willing to share, or have no idea and probably don't even give the subject any thought. You might argue that he only thinks he knows, but autistics are also meticulous about details. If any autistic person tells me they know something, I'm more likely to trust them than I would an average person. Your attempt at an insult undermines your attempt to contradict him.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sense much nerd rage in you.
I have searched but could not find any thing related and there is no specific forum for this device. The problem is when I connect my laptop using the Android Wifi or USB tethers, I can only access HTTPS sites. If I try to hit a HTTP site, they give the general 'could not connect' error. I have tested to ensure I can hit both HTTP and HTTPS sites from my phones browser. I have the same issue using multiple different Wifi and/or USB tether apps. Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated.
TL;DR
With LG Motion (MetroPCS) I am able to browse HTTPS sites but can not browse HTTP sites when using an Android Wifi or USB tether app.
Explanation
I did some more research and found that MetroPCS is now blocking tethering traffic
"Their filtering is based on HTTP user-agents. If your user-agent matches a known user-agent that is not android it
will reject the traffic. Now there are two problems with this,
A.) If an unknown userAgent is passed or No user agent, your traffic is accepted.
B.) There are a bazillion TCP protocols that do not have user-agents.
So off the bat with no user-agent spoofing, all protocols work except HTTP, including HTTPS, HTTPS works out of
box because of its encryption."
so it is safe to assume you are tethering w/o paying their $10/mo fee to allow thethering through you MetroPCS phone?
FYI, I feel that fee is a pretty high premium as it brings the unlimited 4g LTE use plan to $70mo. Still not that bad if you can make use of it. Extras like this bug me for some reason, but if they put it in the plan and just charged more I prolly would not think twice.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
So I'm not Crazy
this had me pulling my hair out...
tethering was working for me- but then stopped mid-session. thinking it was due to network errors i just quit for the day... only to find tethering never working again.
tracert discovered traffic bouncing through near half a dozen 10.x networks before only finding "no replies". as you suggest, dns traffic worked (non http) and thus added to the confusion.
it appears i hit some usage threshold and http traffic was disabled. funny thing is i was willing to pay the $10/month tethering fee but was told i can't simultaneously have unlimited 4G and tethering on my account. i opted in favor of spending my $10 on unlimited 4G. i'm not necessarily a heavy network users but definitely beyond their 2.5 GB cap.
thanks for sharing and confirming i wasnt crazy thinking my tethering was broken.
MetroPCS 4g tether not allowing http sites fixed
Tonight, I found a solution for this same issue. I was not able to see this review except on the lg-ms770 phone I have with Android 4.0.4. After seeing the term userAgent, and how that seems to be the issue, I tested an Android tablet on my WiFi tether. It worked great! However, this laptop and my desktop could not surf using http.
As my terminology is out of date, and I am a bit overwhelmed at times by all this great achievement, I found something in the Google Play store called Chrome UA Spoofer. It let me change the user agent that MetroPCS sees when using Google Chrome on my Windows XP and 8 computers. Now, I can surf all http sites that I usually use at work. It's a little slow but I think that has to do with local 4G issues that seem persistent to all users of the services here where I live.
At least it helps me save the $10.00/mth I really didn't want to have to pay. I currently shell out $60.00/mth for my phone with "unlimited everything" service, but the http issue was really bugging me. Thanks to your posts and the key term userAgent which was needed for me to first understand the issue and then find a way around it.
Hope I can be helpful in the future.
-Leo
Hi everyone,
I am trying to get my head around on what can be done to bypass the tethering filter on 3UK.
Below are different scenarios I have come up with and would like any volunteers who could try out any of the following for me. Of course I will be doing these myself as and when time permits but its always helpful to have others view on it too.
Please and I say please, do not turn this thread into Right and Wrongs of tethering or Terms and conditions of 3 mobile contracts. Please keep your views to yourself regarding if its lawful or unlawful or ethical or unethical or whatever you seem to come up with. I would like this to be a productive thread, instead of random comments on tethering.
Option 1: Use SSH Tunnel * Should I use SSH tunnel on my phone and use my PC to connect to it to use internet. Is there a reverse option?
Option 2: Use OpenVPN Install OpenVPN on your pc, and connect your phone to your pc using default VPN function on your phone in my case GT-I9100 comes with VPN function. You could also try to reverse this method and install OpenVPN on your phone and use your PC to connect to it. *
Option 3: Use the above two together in combination As the heading says, use SSH tunnel to connect to your OpenVPN.
Option 4: Use a proxy on your pc and connect to your phone or reverse, install proxy app on your phone and point your pc web browser to that proxy address. You could use the SSH tunnel here to connect too.
So, tools at hand are vpn with any encryption available, ssh tunnel, proxy server.
Tools to ignore - TOR (onion), garlic based TOR like, changing User Agent on web browsers or paid VPN.
3 UK has two APN settings, three.co.uk for mobiles (NATd ip address) and 3internet (dongle users) has external IP address and I believe it’s an Open NAT or no NAT.
Please feel free to mix and match any options and also share your views on what is technically possible.
I hope to see something useful and learn a bit more. Even if we fail to achieve the desired results, it will still be enlightening to find the facts on how 3 detects tethering.
I
Code encode decode
Found on giff gaff forum useful info
Well, they have a few ways..TTL: In my opinion, the most likely telltale signal of tethering. For example, *iOS packets originate with a TTL of 64, so if they see anything else they know something is up. This is very easy to check, as the TTL is checked by each router as the packet is handled. (the address on the envelope - doesn't require opening the letter, to use an analog analogy)APN: Another possible sign of tethering is data being routed over the access point set up for the built-in tethering feature. But giffgaff does NOT have a separate APN for Tethering. Again, this is easy to check without deep packet inspection.User-agent: This is where carriers would need to get heavy-duty equipment and a willingness to be invasive to detect tethering. Your browser sends information about itself to remote web servers, and this information could be checked. I do not think giffgaff is doing this (to detect tethering at least,) as it is not proof of tethering since anyone can easily use another browser on your phone that reports a different User Agent.Web Sites Visited: Again, highly invasive, though it doesn't require DPI. If you're using the DNS servers of the carrier, they could look for requests for certain domain names like windowsupdate.com etc. This wouldn't be proof either, though.I would bet that they are using TTL. So tunneling the TCP/IP packets that way probably resets the TTL to the default of the WAN interface on the phone.
Code encode decode
Why do you have to make 2 threads for the same subject?
Well I wasn't sure at the time of writing first one if I had to go down the route of testing which the second one is for. So, the first one is literally to know if its happening to new contracts only and second is for testing different scenarios and finding how.
Hope this helps and if not then jog on.
Code encode decode
Invincible29 said:
Hope this helps and if not then jog on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Less of the attitude please and more of the reading of forum rules. Stick to one thread for the same thing.
Thread closed, use the other one (it was created first).