Latest News

port80.se delink

port80.se.quakenet.org delinking. It is with great sadness that we must farewell port80.se from QuakeNet after nearly 20 years of service. Unfortunately the hardware problems they were experiencing could not be resolved, and so the decision to delink the server was ...

Read the rest 6 comments

Merry Xmas!

QuakeNet staff wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thanks for your continuing support!

Read the rest 3 comments

New server link

New Server stockholm.se.quakenet.org As of this week we are welcoming a new server to the game, its stockholm.se.quakenet.org kindly hosted by Sunet. While we are getting a new server, we are losing an old one. Since last week portlane.se.quakenet.org has ...

Read the rest 3 comments

Updated Connection Restrictions per IP Address

Posted by meeb on Wednesday 30 January 2008

Hello! This is the first of a few news posts today after a little bleak spot in updates (sorry! our bad). While QuakeNet has enforced a strict limit of five connections per IP address (unless you are connecting to the network from a trusted IP address) we have been limiting some ISPs that dynamically assign IP addresses to lower limits due to some network abuse from a minority of users. These restrictions have recently been updated and are listed below for your reference. We apologise if you are unfairly affected, but we believe they are necessary to maintain a safe and happy QuakeNet.

Telefonica (Spain) limited to ONE connection per IP address
Wanadoo (France) limited to TWO connections per IP address
Wanadoo (Holland) limited to ONE connection per IP address
ONO (Spain) limited to ONE connection per IP address
Bezeqint (Israel) limited to ONE connection per IP address
Proxad (France) limited to ONE connection per IP address
Deutsche Telekom (t-dialin, Germany) limited to TWO connections per IP address All other users are still limited to a maximum of five connections unless otherwise stated above.

Please log in to post comments.

It will always be the case that a minority manage to affect the majority and we can only apologise for this - I mean, just look at fox hunting!

BrkS said on Sunday 03 February 2008

proxad 1 :( wanadoo 2 :(( freebox is the best :)

Nakaori said on Tuesday 05 February 2008

proxad users can't stay on all their channels like that so, why not give us more channel limit?! or TWO connections per IP address.

rchi said on Wednesday 06 February 2008

The current number of channels users can join should be quite sufficient for everyone. Can you honestly say you talk in every one of those 20 channels, and couldn't /part a couple of them if there were other chans you wanted to join?

Desolate said on Wednesday 06 February 2008

why please dont!!! DO NOT BLOCK BEZEKINT! I need to replace my ISP because of you im not reech!

moimel said on Friday 08 February 2008

We don't block any ISP, we just limit a few of them to one or two connections, you can happily use Bezeqint just not with more than one connection at a time.

meeb said on Wednesday 13 February 2008

Why don't you apply that limit only to the dynamic IP ranges. It's very easy punishing a static IP, which some of us are using, in case of bad behavior and not treating the honest ppl in the same bag.

_Done_ said on Monday 03 March 2008

proxad are static IP, not dynamic. At least all the freebox ones (*.fbx.proxad.net). So why are we limited to only 1 ?

dopis said on Thursday 06 March 2008

Hmm, finally not only the germans are limit - oh and guys refer the first threat about Telekom abuse long time ago: http://www.quakenet.org/news.php?item=172 - It's not that much spam here as it was there

Sephiroth said on Thursday 27 March 2008

How long will these restrictions persist?

Quakeman said on Friday 28 March 2008

Agree with #9 We are 4 in the same appartment with the same fbx.proxad.net line, and it's REALLY annoying. Very bad move from quakenet here.

tsr said on Sunday 30 March 2008

Agree with #12 Very bad move from quakenet...

FragiL said on Tuesday 15 July 2008

Very sad move from quakenet indeed, you cant do anything with 1 connections while being behind a NAT. will it be that bad if you give us 2 connections instead of just 1? punishing everyone because of a minority is a solution for when you have no resources to deal with the problem, im sure you can do better then that.

Nuke86 said on Tuesday 19 August 2008

It's a shame! Why do we have to pay for everyone else? I'm a proxad (actually Free.fr)customer too and I believe this new limit is an abuse! Did you guys know that Free (proxad) was the #2 Internet provider in France, with over 9M customers?! It would be nice of you to reconsider and increase the connection per IP address threshold to at least 2. Regards, T.

Teebeau`pac said on Sunday 30 November 2008