🚀 go-pugleaf

David Richards wrote in message <69f3g6$mfh$1@gail.ripco.com>...
>In article <34bacce5.386663004@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Barry Schofield <bscho@lioncom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:12:39 +0000, Adrian Kennard
>><593027877@nospam.andrews-arnold.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Claire Moore wrote:
>>>> I would really appreciate anyones thoughts on which provider would be
able
>>>> to offer a package to let approx 5 users browse the internet at one
time, &
>>>> 10 Email dial-up accounts.  This is all we would need.  Having spoken
to the
>>>> "biggies" in the market (eg. Pipex etc), they really are not aimed at
the
>>>> small business market.
>>>
>>>Demon allow as many machines as you like using NAT, and allow
>>>unlimited email addresses. They would seem very sensible.


This is true.

>>
>> Does Demon actually allow this? I should keep this very quiet.
>> Demon would like everyone who has more than one machine to go to
>> their business tariff, and they will not assist in giving advice on
>> this matter on the 10 pound connections.
>
>Perhaps they mean 'more than one IP address'? That wouldn't be
unreasonable.
>
>
>>I thought it was more they had a problem stopping it? I should
>>imagine, if to many take this option up they would stop NAT routing.
>
>I'd like to know how they could stop you from using NAT on your end of the
>connection. Aside from sniffing out the types and number of connections
>from the single 'real' IP address on your LAN, it'd be difficult to even
>detect that you're using NAT, and basically impossible to prevent.
>

And also they don't actually care.  All they care about is the amount of
bandwidth you consume.  It's impossible to use more bandwidth than
demon's dialup ports provide and you've paid for that.

They don't mind you doing it, it's just that there's a lot of stupid people
out there and NAT is a complex subject.  They don't want disproportionate
amounts of support staff time taken up by a small percentage of people
who are trying to do something they don't understand.