🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Xns928C932E555EEparcxmannetscapenet@13.1.103.31>,
Parcxman  <parcxman@netscape.net> wrote:
>A friend has had ATTBI cable for a few years.  He is replacing his old PII 
>with a new machine.  It is fully loaded, runs XP, and has a NIC.
>
>He wanted to know what ATT software he had to load to make the connection.  
>I told him NONE!
>
>Am I correct in also telling him that all he needs to do to connect to 
>ATTBI is unplug the RJ45 plug from his old machine's NIC and plug it into 
>his new machine's NIC, and reboot?  He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area 
>(San Carlos).  I live in the same area, and I have added hubbed machines 
>(purchased IPs) simply by plugging them in.  I haven't had to call ATTBI.

Yes.  If all goes well, DHCP will assign an internet address to the new
PC and everything will work.

AT&T has been making noises in the press about enforcing their rules
regarding multiple computers on one account.  So, it might be best to
avoid connecting both the old and new PC at the same time.  DHCP will
assign addresses to both of them, but AT&T might ask your friend to pay
more for having two computers connected.  They might also accuse your
friend of theft of service.

Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
me of theft of service?
-- 
David Arnstein       
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com  

In ba.internet Parcxman <parcxman@netscape.net> wrote:
> A friend has had ATTBI cable for a few years.  He is replacing his old PII 
> with a new machine.  It is fully loaded, runs XP, and has a NIC.

> He wanted to know what ATT software he had to load to make the connection.  
> I told him NONE!

> Am I correct in also telling him that all he needs to do to connect to 
> ATTBI is unplug the RJ45 plug from his old machine's NIC and plug it into 
> his new machine's NIC, and reboot?  He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area 
> (San Carlos).  I live in the same area, and I have added hubbed machines 
> (purchased IPs) simply by plugging them in.  I haven't had to call ATTBI.

He doesn't need to install any software.  Just connect the modem to the NIC
and use DHCP address assignment.  You will probably need to power cycle the
cable modem first, which causes it to forget the MAC address of the card
that it was connected to previously.  (This may not even be the case anymore,
but was with the original Motorola Cybersurfr modem that I had ~4 years ago)

-Bill

In article <am87av$cd$1@reader1.panix.com>,
 arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote:

> Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
> NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
> I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
> that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
> me of theft of service?

You can depend on AT&T to do whatever it thinks is in it best interests 
at the time, whether or not it is part of the TOS.

(BTW, AT&T claims that it can detect multiple computers, even behind a 
router. That's why I use DSL.)

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

In ba.internet David Arnstein <arnstein@panix.com> wrote:
> Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
> NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
> I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
> that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
> me of theft of service?

Doubtable.  The only way they're really going to be able to tell is by
aggregate statistics.  (i.e. the fact that a regular, individual user
isn't likely to be connecting to 5 different web servers simultaneously)

Obviously they want you to buy extra addresses from them, whenever possible,
though...

-Bill

Bill Pitz <remove.thisbill@nospam.svn.net> writes:

>> Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
>> NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
>> I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
>> that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
>> me of theft of service?

>Doubtable.  The only way they're really going to be able to tell is by
>aggregate statistics.  (i.e. the fact that a regular, individual user
>isn't likely to be connecting to 5 different web servers simultaneously)

Note there's a paper coming out from someone senior in IETF about
doing just that, detecting boxi inside of NAT. I have no idea how
he does so, but know the author and would sooner try to convert the
Pope than argue with him in his field.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:09:28 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
wrote:

>Bill Pitz <remove.thisbill@nospam.svn.net> writes:
>
>>> Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
>>> NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
>>> I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
>>> that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
>>> me of theft of service?
>
>>Doubtable.  The only way they're really going to be able to tell is by
>>aggregate statistics.  (i.e. the fact that a regular, individual user
>>isn't likely to be connecting to 5 different web servers simultaneously)
>
>Note there's a paper coming out from someone senior in IETF about
>doing just that, detecting boxi inside of NAT. I have no idea how
>he does so, but know the author and would sooner try to convert the
>Pope than argue with him in his field.

Well, one thing, many (not all) NAT schemes use very obvious port numbers
for the translated connections.  For instance, if you see connections to
your server where the source ports are > 60000, you can bet money its a
Linux 2.2 system doing masquerade with ipchains...  I think the MS
Internet Connection Sharing in various late model windows systems uses
ports above 32000.

In article <am87av$cd$1@reader1.panix.com>,
 arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote:

> Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
> NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
> I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
> that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
> me of theft of service?

Where does it say that you can't have a router? (Note that the multiple 
computers thing where you have to pay for additional IP no.'s is not the 
same as having a router.)

In article <mfdemiccoREMOVE_THIS-04EC59.08242519092002@news.fu-berlin.de>, 
mfdemiccoREMOVE_THIS@mac.com (Mike DeMicco) writes...
> In article <am87av$cd$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>  arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote:
> 
> > Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
> > NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
> > I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
> > that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
> > me of theft of service?
> 
> Where does it say that you can't have a router? (Note that the multiple 
> computers thing where you have to pay for additional IP no.'s is not the 
> same as having a router.)


Based on what I read here, seems like they aren't telling 
customers they can't "have a router". (more specifically, that
they can't use NAT)

Which of course is a bit bizarre, because using NAT accomplishes 
precisely what they are apparently trying to curb by not allowing 
users to use multiple IPs: namely, multiple computers per household
cable account. 

Maybe they're hoping the average user wouldn't go get a box that
does NAT, and they don't make an issue about it because some focus
group told them users would feel it was too big-brother'ish to
make a policy against it.


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization        [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium--------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkusenet64 @  ekahuna27 . com   *
* Civilians killed in WTC attack: 2,830  Afghan civilians killed by US: 3,767 *
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2141000/2141975.stm*
* Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.   *

Hmmm, I was wondering why AT&T finally raised my CPE (how many devices it
will allow or learn) value on my cable modem from 1 to 7 and then sent me
email asking if I wanted to add more computers to my account, for a fee of
course.

I'll stick with the added protection of my NAT'd router rather than pay them
more to not provide any form of security when I add a future box..

"Mike DeMicco" <mfdemiccoREMOVE_THIS@mac.com> wrote in message
news:mfdemiccoREMOVE_THIS-04EC59.08242519092002@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <am87av$cd$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>  arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote:
>
> > Here's a question for the n.g.:  suppose I buy a cheap router that does
> > NAT and connect it to an AT&T cable internet modem.  Also suppose that
> > I connect several computers to the router and use NAT.  Do you think
> > that AT&T will detect the presence of the multiple computers, and accuse
> > me of theft of service?
>
> Where does it say that you can't have a router? (Note that the multiple
> computers thing where you have to pay for additional IP no.'s is not the
> same as having a router.)