Your post was funny because being a computer guy myself, every time you brought up a barrier, my mind immediately came up with the “fix” and literally that was always the next thing you’d say, haha. Seems we always immediately came to the same conclusions to bypass it all.
That’s really bizarre about it listening on 9080 and 9443. But didn’t you say that in the drive you set the listening ports to be exactly those? So that is no mystery why they’d accept connections on those odd ports.
No, wait. I had it backwards. The connections were coming in on 9000’s but the NAS was listening on 80/443 still regardless.
So I say that the traffic comes in over their network and your host as 9000’s, hits the port forwarding in the router… I don’t know how to put this non confusingly but basically the reason for the ports accepting connections on ports they’re not listening on is due to uPnP’s dynamic port mapping from the LAN side out… It established the last link to map those odd ports to the incoming data, even seemingly on the wrong port.
Btw that’s stupid. Blocking 80/443. Ok. Somebody might try and run a web server on their network. But this is a prime example where their proactive network lockdown prevents legit use devices/software from working.
I can understand blocking SMTP cause people would be scanning the ISP’s whole subnet (I say that as if it doesn’t happen 24/7 regardless, lol) and finding people running servers with open relays/noob security. Then using them to do the infamous dastardly spam jobs. And I can get port 21/FTP incoming. Don’t want any 0-day top sites running off of their generous 3mbps upstream allotment…
Sometimes they act like they’re giving you an OC-384 connection to just have your way and push terabytes a day out.
In reality, save the inherent legal and unique nature of spamming, there’s only so much you’re gonna ruin them running a web/FTP site off of some meager few Mbps upstream connection. “Well if everyone did it” yeah we’ll everyone doesn’t and wouldn’t. So, weak argument, there.
Then you had them blocking torrent ports. Then the contra quickly just tunnels the traffic dynamically. Then that leads to traffic/bandwidth shaping.
I see pretty soon the next step is blocking port 80/443 outbound. Lol.
I dunno if you saw the recent statistics but netflix was the real scourge, weighing in at some 30%+ of total bandwidth usage. By contrast, the runner up was YouTube at about a mere 12% or so? Torrents, Facebook, http and the other expected candidates filled out the remaining top slots.
And that’s the way it’s going and it’s gonna stay. The real issue is gonna be when HD streaming media REALLY blows up to the apex of its utility. We’re just getting started.
Streaming 1080p… and then what, when 4k goes standard and audio gives way to the final frontier and we abandon lossy audio for lossless.
But the beauty of that all is it’s self governing.
Meaning? You have two things constantly improving— codecs/compression algorithms that can store “x” times the amount of video at the same quality level or the opposite, you can store “x” times the quality using the same amount of space/bandwidth. Kind of a moore’s law derivative.
Compression tech steadily improves so we actually need LESS bandwidth to accomplish the same thing… while network tech is constantly increasing our throughput/overall basal bandwidth.
So you would end up having more bandwidth available, while also not needing that available excess.
In a perfect model. But we want 8,096k resolution with 64 channels of lossless audio and then some.
Bandwidth lust.
If it’s available for consumption, we will find a way to consume it all. Human nature 101.
But anyways. The point was it will reach an eventual state of diminishing returns on the content… You can only get so far in quality that it’s indistinguishable to the senses like ABX testing. You’re not gonna get to a higher resolution than reality. Or will we? What’s the resolution of reality?! Mind foookkk. Not really. The likely answer to that is the bandwidth / data / resolution of reality is invariably going to be greater than our senses ability to perceive such detail. It’s like watching a bluray on a 480p tv. The source detail is immaterial when the equipment decoding/presenting that information cannot faithfully reproduce it.
In simplest terms: human perception is lossy. Reality/nature… who knows the amount of detail that our very senses cannot process.
Sound being an easy example. Humans can hear frequencies from ~20Hz to ~20,000Hz, at best. Does that mean that’s the natural frequency range of sound? To us, I guess it is. Or it’s all that really matters. But even just knowing dogs can hear at least up to 40,000Hz or more is plenty enough evidence of that whole concept. That we are lossy decoders, decoding a lossless signal (or more so than we can tell).
We dither reality.
I really shouldn’t have taken that much mescaline before getting on a forum about hard drives, lol!! How I got from port 443 to theoretical existentialism — that’s off the beaten path just a little tiny bit. Lesson learned.
Well. I both addressed your info and also brought you to premature enlightenment as an aside. You’re welcome?? Lol. Sorry, mate!!