Article View: comp.dcom.modems.cable
Article #570Re: New cox cable managed network
From: Arthur Hagen
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:27
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:27
46 lines
4309 bytes
4309 bytes
"vernon" <vernonoNOSPAM@contractor.net> wrote in message news:4JNd8.1916$FY5.170737@news2.west.cox.net... > > "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com> wrote in message > news:rzNc8.896$XT1.64432@news1.east.cox.net... > > > > Must be very different from the residential service then, cause with > > residential service, Cox doesn't allow for direct TCP/IP communication > > between two customer machines even if they pay for an extra IP. Using a > > second NIC is the only way to be able to do this. With @home, the > customer > > got fixed IPs in a situation like this, and could set up static routing > > between the two (or three) local machines. Even if using DHCP, they were > > given different subnets so they at least could bounce packets off the > router > > (while slow, at least it worked). With Cox, you lose all TCP/IP > > communication between local machines unless you add a second NIC. > > Emailed questions to tech support about this has gone unanswered. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > *Art > > Are you stating that a router does not solve (circumvent) this problem? If you're thinking of a NAT "router" as in the supermarket variety that does address translation and acts as a DHCP server, it solves the problem IF and only IF you don't need two IP addresses reachable from the net, or the same service running on two machine. It will appear to be one machine to the outside world, and act as a switch for the inside LAN. But then you wouldn't have ordered extra IPs from Cox in the first place... If you're thinking of a real router placed ON the subnet, it can't do anything about this situation. If Cox had provided RIP information like @home did, it could. However, I have received email from Cox stating that they will NOT provide RIP information, so this won't work either. If you want two (or more) exposed or partially exposed hosts, and want to be able to communicate between the two hosts themselves through TCP/IP (a reasonable request), Cox doesn't provide it - unlike @home. I'd call their "extra IP" a worthless product as it is now. Regards, -- *Art
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<_xOd8.3976$jC3.157556@news1.east.cox.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!cox.net!news1.east.cox.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mailReferences:
<I0VX7.10375$B61.4953680@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com> <3C314C9C.DEDF0FCC@reece.net> <82lY7.33203$K36.11443500@news1.rdc1.va.home.com> <3C334AC0.7C6370B@reece.net> <bc5b60f8.0201170659.1fb61766@posting.google.com> <m_V48.3805$zR3.251588@news2.east.cox.net> <bc5b60f8.0201272107.82cbac8@posting.google.com> <dQo68.4657$Xk4.242975@news1.east.cox.net> <ggS68.7796$Xk4.425111@news1.east.cox.net> <y3U68.8160$Xk4.436368@news1.east.cox.net> <3%Z98.7525$zb.402885@news1.east.cox.net> <jQxa8.2975$SJ3.111671@news1.east.cox.net> <ShIa8.4164$SJ3.170583@news1.east.cox.net> <nnPa8.6168$SJ3.212179@news1.east.cox.net> <S4Ra8.6327$SJ3.221438@news1.east.cox.net> <Cagb8.10394$SJ3.374222@news1.east.cox.net> <gXib8.10520$SJ3.387856@news1.east.cox.net> <rLtb8.11334$SJ3.445265@news1.east.cox.net> <3C6E9AC8.41A0EAB4@charter.net> <vm6c8.5941$7Q6.215936@news1.east.cox.net> <3C72EA16.5FA77114@charter.net> <rzNc8.896$XT1.64432@news1.east.cox.net> <4JNd8.1916$FY5.170737@news2.west.cox.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10f392,a7865c87070b0fcc X-Google-Attributes: gid10f392,public X-Google-Thread: 1136e3,710aa4d82544bdbb X-Google-Attributes: gid1136e3,public X-Google-Thread: 113850,a7865c87070b0fcc X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-23 07:27:56 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!cox.net!news1.east.cox.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com> Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems.cable,cableinet.cable_modems,cox.internet.discussion.athomeconversion References: <I0VX7.10375$B61.4953680@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com> <3C314C9C.DEDF0FCC@reece.net> <82lY7.33203$K36.11443500@news1.rdc1.va.home.com> <3C334AC0.7C6370B@reece.net> <bc5b60f8.0201170659.1fb61766@posting.google.com> <m_V48.3805$zR3.251588@news2.east.cox.net> <bc5b60f8.0201272107.82cbac8@posting.google.com> <dQo68.4657$Xk4.242975@news1.east.cox.net> <ggS68.7796$Xk4.425111@news1.east.cox.net> <y3U68.8160$Xk4.436368@news1.east.cox.net> <3%Z98.7525$zb.402885@news1.east.cox.net> <jQxa8.2975$SJ3.111671@news1.east.cox.net> <ShIa8.4164$SJ3.170583@news1.east.cox.net> <nnPa8.6168$SJ3.212179@news1.east.cox.net> <S4Ra8.6327$SJ3.221438@news1.east.cox.net> <Cagb8.10394$SJ3.374222@news1.east.cox.net> <gXib8.10520$SJ3.387856@news1.east.cox.net> <rLtb8.11334$SJ3.445265@news1.east.cox.net> <3C6E9AC8.41A0EAB4@charter.net> <vm6c8.5941$7Q6.215936@news1.east.cox.net> <3C72EA16.5FA77114@charter.net> <rzNc8.896$XT1.64432@news1.east.cox.net> <4JNd8.1916$FY5.170737@news2.west.cox.net> Subject: Re: New cox cable managed network Lines: 48 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: <_xOd8.3976$jC3.157556@news1.east.cox.net> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:27:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.14.87.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net X-Trace: news1.east.cox.net 1014478074 68.14.87.162 (Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:27:54 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:27:54 EST Organization: Cox Communications