Can't download Windows Updates or visit Microsoft.com
-
Microsoft's website hasn't been pingable for at least 20 years. So your ping is pretty much expected. It's hitting the MSN backbone, it's fine.
Doesn't look like you are doing double NAT, but that could be it. MS does like to use HTTPS and double NAT can do some fun things there. Remove any third party routers behind Comcast's junk.
Other than that, try another connection. Grab your phone and make it into a hot spot. If it doesn't work then, you know it's your machine itself. If it works, then something on your local network. I doubt that it's anything to do with Comcast, that big of an issue would hit up lots of news sites.
-
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
-
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
-
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me. Never done that. I hate double nat.
-
I guess it must be an issue with either my Sophos UTM (I'm having other issues with it) or Comcast. Likely the Sophos UTM which is sad because I really want to like it and it's got nice features over pfsense. hmm.
The site did load fine using my cellular connection (granted very slowly as we don't have 4G around here).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
For the past few day's I can't get to any of microsoft's network. Not Updates, not websites. No Nothing. Anyone else been having issues?
That's all the hallmarks of a Conficker infection.
Unlikely that you've been infected so long as your patched up and have anti-malware but these nasties evolve. Worth scanning anyway. -
@nadnerB said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
For the past few day's I can't get to any of microsoft's network. Not Updates, not websites. No Nothing. Anyone else been having issues?
That's all the hallmarks of a Conficker infection.
Unlikely that you've been infected so long as your patched up and have anti-malware but these nasties evolve. Worth scanning anyway.I don't think may computer would have anyway of getting infected it's all up to date and I don't download anything expect from software vendors sites.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me. Never done that. I hate double nat.
Thing is, lots of folks don't know or cannot configure stuff.
When I was at the big blue Borg, had lots of folks who would double NAT a device behind a 2wire. Caused all kinds of weird shit when attempting to browse to Yahoo's mail site. Current U-Verse equipment unless properly configured will wind up with a double NAT scenario. Even configured differently will only be pseudo-public. Same thing happens at the big red V on their equipment.
Comcast has delivered lots of "routers" to folks so we wind up with lots of double NAT. And those devices are much harder to modify to bridge mode. Same thing with Time Warner, Cox, and Charter.
Sometimes its unavoidable. But it does fun things when you try it. Hence why every ISP will tell you to remove any third party equipment from their stuff to troubleshoot. Its not just because they are from a certain subcontinent and reading from a script. Clearing cache and cookies, yeah, that's in the script.
-
I bought my modem myself rather than Through Comcast so luckily I didn't have to deal with their crappy modems.
Anyway it all randomly started working lastnight. Microsoft started working again. No more high latecny and no constant loss of connection. No idea what happened as I didn't change anything.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me. Never done that. I hate double nat.
Thing is, lots of folks don't know or cannot configure stuff.
When I was at the big blue Borg, had lots of folks who would double NAT a device behind a 2wire. Caused all kinds of weird shit when attempting to browse to Yahoo's mail site. Current U-Verse equipment unless properly configured will wind up with a double NAT scenario. Even configured differently will only be pseudo-public. Same thing happens at the big red V on their equipment.
Comcast has delivered lots of "routers" to folks so we wind up with lots of double NAT. And those devices are much harder to modify to bridge mode. Same thing with Time Warner, Cox, and Charter.
Sometimes its unavoidable. But it does fun things when you try it. Hence why every ISP will tell you to remove any third party equipment from their stuff to troubleshoot. Its not just because they are from a certain subcontinent and reading from a script. Clearing cache and cookies, yeah, that's in the script.
You're right, I forgot that some ISPs are now starting to provide NAT'ed connections to customers. If those customers want to protect themselves from the ISP, they have to install their own firewall, and poof double NAT'ing. One reason why I always suggest getting a separate cable modem and router when possible.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
People are recomeding double NAT over there as a security practice. It gives you better security they claim to have two firewalls. So apparently some are.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I bought my modem myself rather than Through Comcast so luckily I didn't have to deal with their crappy modems.
Anyway it all randomly started working lastnight. Microsoft started working again. No more high latecny and no constant loss of connection. No idea what happened as I didn't change anything.
Maybe the ISP had an upstream problem? I've seen this before when they had a bad route and whole sections of the internet were inaccessible.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
People are recomeding double NAT over there as a security practice. It gives you better security they claim to have two firewalls. So apparently some are.
Double firewalls does not equal double NAT. Double firewalls used to be a standard practice and enterprises all still do this. But I know of none that do double NAT, many don't do NAT at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Double NAT? is everyone here running two routers in series behind their ISP's connection?
Not me.
OK good I thought I had missed something completely.
People are recomeding double NAT over there as a security practice. It gives you better security they claim to have two firewalls. So apparently some are.
Double firewalls does not equal double NAT. Double firewalls used to be a standard practice and enterprises all still do this. But I know of none that do double NAT, many don't do NAT at all.
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
If it's configured in that way. But they way they were suggestion is is using the second NAT to separate business related in the same building (parent company from sister company etc.) instead of using a single router with a firewall and separate subnets for each.
-
I don't see the point in over complicating it by using double NAT.
It just makes things more difficult for the poor bunny that has to troubleshoot it. -
This is just one of them I've seen recently. http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/859078-soho-router-to-router-dchp-works-static-doesnt
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes of course. But in this case they are reccomeding using two routers.
Right, that's what I'm saying. Two routers and/or two firewalls doesn't suggest double NAT.
If it's configured in that way. But they way they were suggestion is is using the second NAT to separate business related in the same building (parent company from sister company etc.) instead of using a single router with a firewall and separate subnets for each.
That's different then.
