On 1/23/02 3:09 PM, Eric Hildum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 1/22/02 2:45 PM, Adam Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> on 1/21/02 7:47 PM, Zachary Braverman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>>> I just have a cable modem connected to an ethernet hub, which I have both >>>> of my machines connected to. The cable modem company knows, and charges me >>>> slightly extra for the extra machine, but I don't know how many I could >>>> pile on there without them noticing... >>> >>> With a hub, they will notice them all (as will everyone else on your cable >>> segment). With a switch, or better yet a router with NAT capability, they >>> will never know how many machines you have connected, and you will not have >>> to pay for the extra addresses that are needed with a hub. >> >> Note that this may violate the ISP's AUP. Although it's more difficult to >> detect this kind of setup, it's not impossible. > > If that is in your AUP, that is a good reason to change ISPs.
It's not in mine. I don't even have broadband access, so my ISP could care less if I try to stuff eight computers through one 56k modem. In the early days of broadband, it was quite common for ISPs to prohibit NAT. They'd try to enforce this by detecting activity that was clearly caused by multiple computers utilizing the connection at the same time. This is now loosening somewhat, but not as much as you'd think. Since most broadband cost models still depend on selling the user more bandwidth than they'll actually use, they'll do anything to discourage you from saturating the pipe. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Finger/Web for PGP [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lull.org/adam/ -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
