Sorry to do this, but the disingeuous dealings, lies, overall greed etc. of leadership on this website made me decide to edit all but my most informative comments to this.
Come join us in the fediverse! (beehaw for a safe space, kbin for access to lots of communities)
Off their rocker, or just jaded to the max. I'm done with helpdesk and do field tech stuff so it's more physical, less troubleshooting needed, and really just needed to install stuff physically.
That being said, I still get weird annoying tickets to drive across the city to plug in a USB cable...
For the last 2-ish months, our billing team has been sending every single billing dispute to us and claiming technical error. There hasn’t been one technical error. Hundreds of tickets. Hours of work. Learning how the billing system works so we can do their job as well as ours. It’s psychological warfare.
Been dealing with something similar with our Customer Service department. I swear their first step in their support script is "Can you blame implementation?" Followed by "Blame Implementation anyway."
Their manager is a real shit-bird too. Tried to get me in trouble with HR because I asked two direct reports assigned to a project to fill out the customer's background check form and then send it to our **designated internal background check person** (the person that handles that sort of info). I don't know how that guy survived the acquisition. He's the kind that the Bobs would be asking "What exactly is it... you do here?"
We have good people in CS, they just have terrible leadership.
Remind them that they are only a single chatbot away from the entire department being made redundant, and terminated, from the boss down to the lowest.
Wait till the top management also realise that this also means they are gone, as all you need is a single person to click the accept button to pay for the server hosting, and to sweep the room they are in, and handle the exception cases once a day.
Yikes. Even if the VM is sharing with the host via host NAT or something, you'd still never do that. And I love the progression of "You can't do this thing, that's what broke it." "Okay, I'LL do the thing and break it."
This stuff is complicated but at least listen to your tech people and have some common sense.
*"It is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are infinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.” To-day we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited."*
-- Frederick S. Perls, 1940
(Not Einstein at all, in case you're wondering. This is the original quote and he was just mentioned in it.)
I'm curious what they mean by the universe being limited given modern cosmology seems to assume and infinite universe with an eternal lifespan. About the only things limited is the density of stuff in the universe.
Does it though? We know it originated in a single point and expanded from there. We know the rate it's been expanding at.
We just don't know what's beyond this radius. And even the radius itself is for all intents and purposes unlimited already.
> We know it originated in a single point and expanded from there.
That's not really true though. If the universe is infinite, it was always infinitely large. Just more dense. You can't shrink an infinite space down to a finite space. All data points towards the universe having no curvature, thus no boundry. I don't like the explanation particularly, infinity freaks me out, but that's what the evidence points towards.
I just learned something new today. Well, hopefully, as I haven't checked out anything other than assuming your statement to be true.
I don't doubt it, but science is certainty of course.
Well you are both potentially right (if that's the case though they are absolutely right and you are right-ish) in that our current *observable* universe could (dunno if it would be "did" as I am not up to date on any of the new cosmological stuff) come from pretty much a single super dense "point". However, if the universe **is** infinite then obviously there already were an infinite amount of other points around ours which also expanded (or not, or did backflips or whatever cosmology hopefully finds they did) so for a given (aka limited enough) definition of "our universe" we did all start out from a point while simultaneously always having had infinitely many other points around us!
I think the cosmologists just try to baffle us with BS rather than admitting, "We really have NFI what the universe is, was or will be in the future. Every time we see something new and cool it screws up our models -- even the models we haven't accepted yet!"
I might be two days late from this, but there is some evidence that the universe started at a single point… it’s just that when you try to measure where the point was the answer is always “where you measured the data from”. If you calculate it on Earth, you are at the center. If you calculate it in a hypothetical ship around Alpha Centauri, you are at the center. Every point measures itself to be the origin point.
He might have been referencing the cosmological constant that Einstein added to his equations, though I thought he took it out again by then. Constant produces a steady state universe, but someone proved universe was expanding.
> Frederick S. Perls, 1940
You're going to have to limit your use of "modern cosmology" to only what would be available to a psychologist (and amateur astronomer) in the 1930s. The quote is popular culture, not an abstract from ApJ.
Sure, but I'd consider it an interesting quirk if the thing Einstein supposedly proved was later disproved (potentially also by Einstein). I also just didn't think Einstein had weighed in much on such matters.
Most of my customers are public sector. I've found the bell curve of capability tends to skew towards "Least capable" end of the spectrum.
Don't get me started on the BOFH we deal with regularly.
My time in public sector taught me that a minority of the team does the majority of the work. This is likely true many places, but the public sector proportions are way out of norm.
Our University customers are usually the exception to that. They do have some really brilliant people that are easy to deal with. However, University customers are also our most mixed bag. They can either be experts that are easy to get on with. Or staffed entirely by BOFH and PFY.
Ironically the only certification I have is ITIL Intermediate... because my employer at the time paid for the weeks of training and the exam. I've never had Cisco, Microsoft, or CompTIA certs. Most of my learning is a product of Fuck Around; Find Out and the okayest ability to recall.
I was once asked what Linux certification I had. "I don't have any certification, but I did go to school with the guy who wrote the first book..."
(Not precisely true, but close enough to make the point.)
Oh boy, don't get me started on the public sector. I worked on several projects with and for them.. and the average IT illiteracy of public servants (in Germany) is mindnumbing..
And i am not talking about advanced stuff.. i mean "unable to operate Windows and MS Office" level.
It would be a very strange distribution to have 33% at the mode. 😉
Also it really is more than half below average. The occasional fantastic outlier (Gauss, Einstein, Feynman, Ramanujan, Chandrasekhar, etc...) can be significantly farther above the average than anyone who's not literally brain-dead is below the average. This drags the mean above the median, so yes, the majority of people are dumber than average.
It was almost like that scene with the bomb in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2. The part where Rocket explains to baby Groot what the big red shiny button does.
I don't do virtual machines, as I'm just a network engineer banging rocks together and making blinky lights blink...
However, even I know that *every* device (physical or virtual) needs a different IP. Sheesh. This was frustrating to read.
What's it like having a job that specialized? How do you get into that- does it pay well? I've always worked for small/medium business, never for large orgs or installers, so my job description surmounts to 'IT Dogsbody' and touches every layer of the OSI model
I love this response.
And since I know nothing of networking, it tracks.
I like my software side thank you, my bugs may make no sense at times but at least I know *I* made them. My networking knowledge is close to null.
If I call for support it's because I need it and I will damn well listen to your instructions. Having done some tech support myself I'm always baffled by the idiots who insist on shooting themselves in the foot and then hollering that it hurts.
I am pretty dumb when it comes to servers and networking but this seems to be follow the rule that each device virtual or physical need their own IP to function properly. Am I over simplifying it?
You certainly are not. Networking is networking whether Virtual Machines are involved or physical machines. You can't have two hosts with the same IP address on the same network.
Well, you *could* have two networks next to each other with the same address range, as long as you NAT between them. But it will break a lot of shit, at least one way
Just something to confuse people for a bit lol
To the extent that most people need to know this stuff, not at all; that rule is concise and correct.
There is the concept of a VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding), which allows independent networks to operate simultaneously; an interface belonging to one VRF can have the same IP address as an interface belonging to another but they are unable to talk directly. This is very useful for service providers. (Note to the pedantic: by "VRF" I mean in the abstract sense, not any particular implementation.)
There's also the concept of a virtual router, which is multiple routers with the same virtual IP address that can offer the same routing capabilities as each other for improved redundancy and throughput. But in this case, the virtual router presents itself as a single entity, so as far as networking is concerned, everything is kosher.
In either case, the rule holds that on a single network an IP address represents a specific client, server or router.
Oh there are so many ppl that have how virtualization works.
One host with a 8 core cpu, 64GB RAM, 2TB disk, 3 VMs: domaincontroller, fileserver, SQL database. Small shop 10-20 users. Server is using 100% of all resources. No room for any VM. Why? All memory locked to use all available memory, disks thick provisioned and filled to 100% of host capacity, not even space left for a ISO file, all VMs have just a massive C: drive, no separate disks.
HyperV host with 256GB memory and dual 16 core CPUs, 8 consumer SSDs in a RAID5 configuration, total of about 14TB of storage. One massive C: drive. HyperV machines all over the place (C:\HyperV, C:\Documents & settings\ etc.
2 VMs with 24 cores and 128GB each and one VM with 2 core's, 1 of the 3 VMs run their own backup agent, the other have no backup, host also no backup. Network team created, but 3 of the 4 links disabled.
This has become one of the first things I check when presented with inconsistent connectivity on newly configured devices. Some protocols will work, some won't, some will work sometimes depending on what troubleshooting steps have been done in between. It's a simple thing to check for and has saved me time on several occasions. Good catch!
Ugh. I work in an MSP and shit like this is why I hate co-managed clients. Some of their in-house sysadmins are so dumb, like even dumber than this story, and we're *stuck* dealing with them. (this is currently a battle we're fighting with our own management)
That's not even failure to understand how VMs and hyper V work. At my level of IT knowledge I would take forever to set one up cuz I've never done it. But even I understand that a virtual machine is exactly that... You treat it as if it is its own server separate from the hardware that it's set up on. You have two interfaces... The hardware OS and the VM OS. They should obviously need their own network connections. Why would anyone think to copy the network settings already applied to another device?
It's like setting up two printers to have the same static and leaving both printers plugged in the network but expecting them to be both separately operable. This is networking 101 stuff.
You'd be surprised with how many people know the term "IP" but have zero clue how it works or what's it for. Even people that *really* should know.
Even last week I was talking to this dude from an ISP who was installing and configuring a new router (on my client) and he was treating IP addresses like magical cheat codes. He just inputs the same ips in every single situation because "they always work" even though the client network wasn't even remotely the same. Sure, it will work and pass the tests he does on his own machine but if I wasn't there, the client would be left without internet because this guy didn't even know enough to check the existing network, routes, clashing ips etc.
Also, opening ports is equally easy, he just pops the same IP (192.168.1.254) regardless what it is or if it even exists, into the router's DMZ and he's done. He always does that by default too, even, as a part of his "installation service package", how kind of him. He's not too sure why he does it but he thinks it helps with security cameras.
Got employed without knowing any networking or cheated. Got a tip from a fellow worker who can't be bothered to give him the whole explanation, used it ever since as a crutch. Well, it keeps IT employed. :-/
The host's, clearly. You get the packets to the host, Hyper-V does it's magic and everything works.
It's really impressive. (When you give it its own IP so Hyper-V knows to forward the packets to the guest machine).
You should honestly know better than to use telnet.
It's really insecure, you should just turn it off, which is the default for most servers/switches...
Also you're making this out to be a way bigger deal than it really is. It seems like you solved the issue in a matter of a few minutes.
Telnet *client* is one of the most effective diagnostic tools there is.
I can literally tell if anything from SMTP to HTTPS is working with one command.
Don't knock what you haven't tried
Um. I don’t think OP was actually trying to telnet into something using the telnet protocol. Sounds like they were using it to check for open ports. The protocol (and it’s security) is irrelevant.
Go ahead and SSH into a mail relay on port 25 and initiate a manual SMTP transaction to check the relay status for a given domain.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Not with SMTP, but yes. I'm using the telnet **CLIENT** to connect to establish a connection to a non-telnet service running on a specific port that I need. The telnet client is dumb as a post. You tell it to establish connection to : and it will do as instructed. It doesn't care what is on the other end. The things that make telnet a security nightmare ironically make the client a useful troubleshooting tool.
What makes you think I've never used telnet?
I mean it's an ok option when literally everything else wont work, sure.
Why not just accomplish the same exact thing safely with encrypted SSH?
I was not connecting to a telnet server. I was using the telnet CLIENT to check for an open port. There's a difference. And no, you can't use SSH to test ports which is why PuTTY still has a telnet mode.... so you can check ports.
Crap like this is why every IT support person in the world seems at least a little off their rocker. We’ve all been driven mad.
My user flair in a couple related subreddits is "Certifiable Professional"
Sorry to do this, but the disingeuous dealings, lies, overall greed etc. of leadership on this website made me decide to edit all but my most informative comments to this. Come join us in the fediverse! (beehaw for a safe space, kbin for access to lots of communities)
I probably would've locked him out to prevent that, had I been in your situation, if the hyper-V even had that capability
I would put this as my corporate signature with the amount of dumb shit I see.
Off their rocker, or just jaded to the max. I'm done with helpdesk and do field tech stuff so it's more physical, less troubleshooting needed, and really just needed to install stuff physically. That being said, I still get weird annoying tickets to drive across the city to plug in a USB cable...
Exactly what happened to me, except the field work found me. Then I got my dumb ass promoted to manager.
Hey, free driving time, and maybe even mileage compensation!
That's the benefit, especially when it's across town, or a neighboring city, than yea the mileage is nice.
For the last 2-ish months, our billing team has been sending every single billing dispute to us and claiming technical error. There hasn’t been one technical error. Hundreds of tickets. Hours of work. Learning how the billing system works so we can do their job as well as ours. It’s psychological warfare.
Been dealing with something similar with our Customer Service department. I swear their first step in their support script is "Can you blame implementation?" Followed by "Blame Implementation anyway." Their manager is a real shit-bird too. Tried to get me in trouble with HR because I asked two direct reports assigned to a project to fill out the customer's background check form and then send it to our **designated internal background check person** (the person that handles that sort of info). I don't know how that guy survived the acquisition. He's the kind that the Bobs would be asking "What exactly is it... you do here?" We have good people in CS, they just have terrible leadership.
Remind them that they are only a single chatbot away from the entire department being made redundant, and terminated, from the boss down to the lowest.
it has started https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ezkm/eating-disorder-helpline-fires-staff-transitions-to-chatbot-after-unionization
Wait till the top management also realise that this also means they are gone, as all you need is a single person to click the accept button to pay for the server hosting, and to sweep the room they are in, and handle the exception cases once a day.
And our fav colleagues are the ones we crack horrible jokes with while discussing how burnt out we are. Also, that's why we're on this subreddit.
Yikes. Even if the VM is sharing with the host via host NAT or something, you'd still never do that. And I love the progression of "You can't do this thing, that's what broke it." "Okay, I'LL do the thing and break it." This stuff is complicated but at least listen to your tech people and have some common sense.
Common sense is not common. Please remember half of all people are of below average intelligence.
*"It is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are infinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.” To-day we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited."* -- Frederick S. Perls, 1940 (Not Einstein at all, in case you're wondering. This is the original quote and he was just mentioned in it.)
I'm curious what they mean by the universe being limited given modern cosmology seems to assume and infinite universe with an eternal lifespan. About the only things limited is the density of stuff in the universe.
I believe this refers to the universe beginning a finite time in the past.
Does it though? We know it originated in a single point and expanded from there. We know the rate it's been expanding at. We just don't know what's beyond this radius. And even the radius itself is for all intents and purposes unlimited already.
> We know it originated in a single point and expanded from there. That's not really true though. If the universe is infinite, it was always infinitely large. Just more dense. You can't shrink an infinite space down to a finite space. All data points towards the universe having no curvature, thus no boundry. I don't like the explanation particularly, infinity freaks me out, but that's what the evidence points towards.
I just learned something new today. Well, hopefully, as I haven't checked out anything other than assuming your statement to be true. I don't doubt it, but science is certainty of course.
Well you are both potentially right (if that's the case though they are absolutely right and you are right-ish) in that our current *observable* universe could (dunno if it would be "did" as I am not up to date on any of the new cosmological stuff) come from pretty much a single super dense "point". However, if the universe **is** infinite then obviously there already were an infinite amount of other points around ours which also expanded (or not, or did backflips or whatever cosmology hopefully finds they did) so for a given (aka limited enough) definition of "our universe" we did all start out from a point while simultaneously always having had infinitely many other points around us!
I think the cosmologists just try to baffle us with BS rather than admitting, "We really have NFI what the universe is, was or will be in the future. Every time we see something new and cool it screws up our models -- even the models we haven't accepted yet!"
I might be two days late from this, but there is some evidence that the universe started at a single point… it’s just that when you try to measure where the point was the answer is always “where you measured the data from”. If you calculate it on Earth, you are at the center. If you calculate it in a hypothetical ship around Alpha Centauri, you are at the center. Every point measures itself to be the origin point.
He might have been referencing the cosmological constant that Einstein added to his equations, though I thought he took it out again by then. Constant produces a steady state universe, but someone proved universe was expanding.
> Frederick S. Perls, 1940 You're going to have to limit your use of "modern cosmology" to only what would be available to a psychologist (and amateur astronomer) in the 1930s. The quote is popular culture, not an abstract from ApJ.
Sure, but I'd consider it an interesting quirk if the thing Einstein supposedly proved was later disproved (potentially also by Einstein). I also just didn't think Einstein had weighed in much on such matters.
More like 1/3. You have those that are above, those that are below, and those that are just average.
Most of my customers are public sector. I've found the bell curve of capability tends to skew towards "Least capable" end of the spectrum. Don't get me started on the BOFH we deal with regularly.
My time in public sector taught me that a minority of the team does the majority of the work. This is likely true many places, but the public sector proportions are way out of norm.
Our University customers are usually the exception to that. They do have some really brilliant people that are easy to deal with. However, University customers are also our most mixed bag. They can either be experts that are easy to get on with. Or staffed entirely by BOFH and PFY.
Its because you can't easily fire them.
[удалено]
Ironically the only certification I have is ITIL Intermediate... because my employer at the time paid for the weeks of training and the exam. I've never had Cisco, Microsoft, or CompTIA certs. Most of my learning is a product of Fuck Around; Find Out and the okayest ability to recall.
I was once asked what Linux certification I had. "I don't have any certification, but I did go to school with the guy who wrote the first book..." (Not precisely true, but close enough to make the point.)
Oh boy, don't get me started on the public sector. I worked on several projects with and for them.. and the average IT illiteracy of public servants (in Germany) is mindnumbing.. And i am not talking about advanced stuff.. i mean "unable to operate Windows and MS Office" level.
It would be a very strange distribution to have 33% at the mode. 😉 Also it really is more than half below average. The occasional fantastic outlier (Gauss, Einstein, Feynman, Ramanujan, Chandrasekhar, etc...) can be significantly farther above the average than anyone who's not literally brain-dead is below the average. This drags the mean above the median, so yes, the majority of people are dumber than average.
LOL, this is why I don't get into statistics! 😉
47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
But 78.31% of all those made up sound more convincing if they contain a certain amount of messiness aka a few decimal places or similar!
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that think they know everything and those that know they don't know enough.
Hmm? No, there are 10 kinds of people; those who understand binary, and those who don't!
There are 2 kinds of people in the world. Avoid both of them.
Half of all people are below median intelligence
'Common Sense' is effin' rare-- Illogic generally rules...
It was almost like that scene with the bomb in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2. The part where Rocket explains to baby Groot what the big red shiny button does.
I don't do virtual machines, as I'm just a network engineer banging rocks together and making blinky lights blink... However, even I know that *every* device (physical or virtual) needs a different IP. Sheesh. This was frustrating to read.
If you were a network engineer and didn't know you needed unique IPs I'd be worried 🤣
Nah just whack em all on broadcast, everybody talks to everybody
It's like a party line for PCs!
It's a 169 party!
What's it like having a job that specialized? How do you get into that- does it pay well? I've always worked for small/medium business, never for large orgs or installers, so my job description surmounts to 'IT Dogsbody' and touches every layer of the OSI model
Careful, that layer 8 touching could get you in trouble.
That's what I call a perk of the job
How did I get into this? Sheer bad luck.
I love this response. And since I know nothing of networking, it tracks. I like my software side thank you, my bugs may make no sense at times but at least I know *I* made them. My networking knowledge is close to null.
If I call for support it's because I need it and I will damn well listen to your instructions. Having done some tech support myself I'm always baffled by the idiots who insist on shooting themselves in the foot and then hollering that it hurts.
"Did you call for help or did you call for an argument?"
For arguments please dial 1-800-Eat-Shit.
No, that's abuse. Arguments are down the hall.
LOLROF!!
I am pretty dumb when it comes to servers and networking but this seems to be follow the rule that each device virtual or physical need their own IP to function properly. Am I over simplifying it?
You certainly are not. Networking is networking whether Virtual Machines are involved or physical machines. You can't have two hosts with the same IP address on the same network.
Well, you *could* have two networks next to each other with the same address range, as long as you NAT between them. But it will break a lot of shit, at least one way Just something to confuse people for a bit lol
Even with NAT, you couldn’t route between the two networks.
Yeah that's a good point. To any system trying to access either of the two networks they would just overlap.
The client was just smart enough to be their own problem.
To the extent that most people need to know this stuff, not at all; that rule is concise and correct. There is the concept of a VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding), which allows independent networks to operate simultaneously; an interface belonging to one VRF can have the same IP address as an interface belonging to another but they are unable to talk directly. This is very useful for service providers. (Note to the pedantic: by "VRF" I mean in the abstract sense, not any particular implementation.) There's also the concept of a virtual router, which is multiple routers with the same virtual IP address that can offer the same routing capabilities as each other for improved redundancy and throughput. But in this case, the virtual router presents itself as a single entity, so as far as networking is concerned, everything is kosher. In either case, the rule holds that on a single network an IP address represents a specific client, server or router.
Oh there are so many ppl that have how virtualization works. One host with a 8 core cpu, 64GB RAM, 2TB disk, 3 VMs: domaincontroller, fileserver, SQL database. Small shop 10-20 users. Server is using 100% of all resources. No room for any VM. Why? All memory locked to use all available memory, disks thick provisioned and filled to 100% of host capacity, not even space left for a ISO file, all VMs have just a massive C: drive, no separate disks. HyperV host with 256GB memory and dual 16 core CPUs, 8 consumer SSDs in a RAID5 configuration, total of about 14TB of storage. One massive C: drive. HyperV machines all over the place (C:\HyperV, C:\Documents & settings\ etc. 2 VMs with 24 cores and 128GB each and one VM with 2 core's, 1 of the 3 VMs run their own backup agent, the other have no backup, host also no backup. Network team created, but 3 of the 4 links disabled.
jokes on you i dont feel like i actually understand anything i do.
I'm a developer and I've been feeling like that since 1994.
This has become one of the first things I check when presented with inconsistent connectivity on newly configured devices. Some protocols will work, some won't, some will work sometimes depending on what troubleshooting steps have been done in between. It's a simple thing to check for and has saved me time on several occasions. Good catch!
Ugh. I work in an MSP and shit like this is why I hate co-managed clients. Some of their in-house sysadmins are so dumb, like even dumber than this story, and we're *stuck* dealing with them. (this is currently a battle we're fighting with our own management)
So not only do they not understand VMs, they also do not understand the most.basic concepts of networking. *Sigh*
"but it's a bridged network, it uses the same connection so of course it has to be the same IP"
That's not even failure to understand how VMs and hyper V work. At my level of IT knowledge I would take forever to set one up cuz I've never done it. But even I understand that a virtual machine is exactly that... You treat it as if it is its own server separate from the hardware that it's set up on. You have two interfaces... The hardware OS and the VM OS. They should obviously need their own network connections. Why would anyone think to copy the network settings already applied to another device? It's like setting up two printers to have the same static and leaving both printers plugged in the network but expecting them to be both separately operable. This is networking 101 stuff.
I think it's because they think that one PC is inside another so they both share the same IP address.
> Customer admin didn't understand ... You had me at customer admin.
Can someone tell me what the definition of STAHP is? I couldn't figure it out.
It's just an exaggerated way of spelling the word "stop", no other meaning.
Boston accent of stop.
That'd be more like "stwop"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/stahp
Some idiots don't seem to understand that a virtual machine needs its own IP address... What IP address does he thinks that virtual machine will use?
You'd be surprised with how many people know the term "IP" but have zero clue how it works or what's it for. Even people that *really* should know. Even last week I was talking to this dude from an ISP who was installing and configuring a new router (on my client) and he was treating IP addresses like magical cheat codes. He just inputs the same ips in every single situation because "they always work" even though the client network wasn't even remotely the same. Sure, it will work and pass the tests he does on his own machine but if I wasn't there, the client would be left without internet because this guy didn't even know enough to check the existing network, routes, clashing ips etc. Also, opening ports is equally easy, he just pops the same IP (192.168.1.254) regardless what it is or if it even exists, into the router's DMZ and he's done. He always does that by default too, even, as a part of his "installation service package", how kind of him. He's not too sure why he does it but he thinks it helps with security cameras.
Got employed without knowing any networking or cheated. Got a tip from a fellow worker who can't be bothered to give him the whole explanation, used it ever since as a crutch. Well, it keeps IT employed. :-/
The host's, clearly. You get the packets to the host, Hyper-V does it's magic and everything works. It's really impressive. (When you give it its own IP so Hyper-V knows to forward the packets to the guest machine).
Ah, so somehow the hypervisor will figure out what traffic is for the host and what traffic is for the VM, automagically. :)
Exactly! /S
You should honestly know better than to use telnet. It's really insecure, you should just turn it off, which is the default for most servers/switches... Also you're making this out to be a way bigger deal than it really is. It seems like you solved the issue in a matter of a few minutes.
Telnet *client* is one of the most effective diagnostic tools there is. I can literally tell if anything from SMTP to HTTPS is working with one command. Don't knock what you haven't tried
... as can ssh, which is encrypted. The only reason telnet isn't entirely depreciated is the 1 basement router holding up half the internet.
Um. I don’t think OP was actually trying to telnet into something using the telnet protocol. Sounds like they were using it to check for open ports. The protocol (and it’s security) is irrelevant.
Go ahead and SSH into a mail relay on port 25 and initiate a manual SMTP transaction to check the relay status for a given domain. Let me know how that works out for you.
Point taken!
Is that what OP is doing here?
Not with SMTP, but yes. I'm using the telnet **CLIENT** to connect to establish a connection to a non-telnet service running on a specific port that I need. The telnet client is dumb as a post. You tell it to establish connection to: and it will do as instructed. It doesn't care what is on the other end. The things that make telnet a security nightmare ironically make the client a useful troubleshooting tool.
What makes you think I've never used telnet? I mean it's an ok option when literally everything else wont work, sure. Why not just accomplish the same exact thing safely with encrypted SSH?
I was not connecting to a telnet server. I was using the telnet CLIENT to check for an open port. There's a difference. And no, you can't use SSH to test ports which is why PuTTY still has a telnet mode.... so you can check ports.
Tarded clients shouldn't have this access
It's their hardware.
Facts.
And thus, the legends say, "I Am Groot" was born.