Someone on the PANMA list recently asked about running a web server on his FiOS line. I have some thoughts.

Verizon definitely blocks incoming port 80. The only way around that is to get a business account that allows servers (opens port 80) and provides a dedicated IP address.

To serve a web site from your internal server to a remote browser, that browser must make its request on a different port than the standard port 80. In addition, you must configure your internal network so that the incoming request is routed to your server.

The router is often able to take incoming requests on a specific port (I like to use port 88 or 8080) and forward them to a computer with a specific IP address inside your internal network. Routers can often reroute that request to a different port, thus requests originating on port 88 can route to the server on your internal network on port 80. The advantage of this is that you can make normal requests of your server from inside your network without adding the port to the requests.

There are two concerns if this is what you want to attempt. First, your router must know to what computer the request should be routed. Usually if you connect a new computer to your network, DHCP simply assigns an IP address to that PC from the pool that the router makes available. This is a problem because then the server is not guaranteed to be using a specific IP address. If the router must be configured to route incoming web requests to a specific IP address, then an IP address that changes is a problem.

To mitigate this issue, you must either assign a fixed IP address to your server from the range that is outside of your DHCP range. On my network, this internal IP address is 192.168.111.68 and is fixed as my home server's IP. Alternatively, some routers allow you to always assign the same IP address to a system via DHCP by identifying its MAC address. This is often a better solution if your router allows it because it allows you to configure IP addresses entirely from your router, rather than having to assign addresses at the server.

The second concern is mapping the correct external port to the port on which the server is listening. This is usually done by configuring port mapping in the NAT table of your router. If can also be done using the DMZ, which will route all requests from the internet to a specific IP address. This can be dangerous though, since you are effectively exposing all other running services on the server to the internet.

Beyond the configuration of NAT on your router, you must determine a way to connect to the IP address of your router from outside, since the IP address assigned to your router can change at Verizon's whim. There are dynamic DNS services that can assign a domain to your IP address and change it as your network address changes. You will need either a router that supports one of these services, or some software running on your server (or one of the other PCs on your network) that can periodically update the dynamic DNS service with your network's address. This will allow you (and others) to find your network using a domain name rather than the IP address.

Note that there may be additional concerns about assigning a domain to your network IP, especially if you are using virtual hosts on your server. Also note that depending on your router and your network configuration, you may not be able to access your server using that domain name, even though it may work from outside your network.

Finally, it may be against Verizon's terms of service for you to run a server on your residential network connection. For that reason, I do not run public servers on my internal network. The servers I make available are for my own use, primarily internally on my network, or for accessing files on my PC remotely.

All of that said, if these configuration instructions don't already make sense to you, then exposing your internal network to the internet is probably a very bad idea.

I'm astounded by the amount of news coverage the inauguration has generated. Are people truly interested in this or is it that the media is saying we should be interested and we're following along like our usual sheepish selves? Nonetheless, I don't recall a presidential inauguration coming along with so much publicized pomp. One might say that it's because it's historic, but I would say that every presidential inauguration is historic.

We will only have racial equality when we don't have to point out what things are equal. I don't consider this presidency a significant step, like so many news shows portray. We've been stepping in this direction for a long time. That there is a black president doesn't minimize racial discrimination everywhere else. Maybe it serves as an example to many how race shouldn't hold back your dreams, but it's not the catalyst or tipping point or King's dream realized.

It has always bothered me that many people interpret King's dream as giving more rights to people who are discriminated against. That's not it at all. It's about the expectation that everyone has the same rights. In my mind, even pointing out that our president is not white is discrimination. He's just another man, another president, and his color is no more relevant to holding that position than the brand of toothpaste he uses.

Beyond race, I agree that the view that Obama conveys is a nice one. I would like for every American to have affordable health care. I would like for everyone to have gainful employment. I would like a strong economy, ecological and economical transportation, and a solid, world-respected posture on international relations. I think that few people would say they didn't want these things, although they might disagree on how we would obtain them. What I'm wondering is whether Obama will enact a plan besides standing in front of a crowd saying "yes we can".

It's not whether he has a plan. He does. It has been on his web site throughout the election. I think my disenchantment is with the American people. We're really swept up in the idea that we can have the change we want, but I've heard nobody talking as if they've been swept up by the process of change. Nobody is excited about creating work programs, or how Obama will influence international politics. If we're excited about change, we're behind the message, and the message is that we must be involved for change to happen, then shouldn't we also know what the plan is? This kind of bothers me, especially because I know too well how people can get behind a cause and not get involved in a cause.

When you combine that with the media-enhanced rock star personality of our new president, I'm really looking forward to seeing him do something with his new office that will make us feel like his promised change is starting to roll.