You can get NAT done, but I'm not sure how long that will last. I don't think the modem itself does NAT, though they require you to use dhcp behind it to get an address. I run a 486, use IP chains with static 192.168 address behind the modem. They allow you to purchase your own modem, but it must be one they approve of. The future of NAT and other services on Cox is not sure, but all indications are bad. Getting anything done is going to cost you time and effort.
They tollerate NAT as they tollerate many other services. Their unilaterally changeable service contract is intentionally vauge and includes a "no servers" clause that does not define banned services. Cox has put port bloxks up to prevent normal web and email service. You can't send mail from your computers, except through their smtp server and have not been able to recieve mail for a long time. You can offer normal ftp service because AOL instant messenger, which also runs a server, uses port 21. Web service is obviously discouraged by a block on port 80. Cox has been forced to degrade their service at the cost of comptitive advantage before. Cox has so restricted their service that it is impractical to offer anything through a Cox Modem, regardless of how clever you are. I've never heard of anyone getting a call from Cox for running anything, but other Cable companies have called the FBI to raid homes of uncappers. Do not count on files at your house being accesible. Upload speeds are painfully slow due to capping at the modem. I've rented a server to share things with family and friends, and uploading is so slow that I have to really want to share before I do it and the 500MB provided looks impractically large. A crummy 4MB tar file can take 10 minutes or so to upload. Yes, uploads really can be just as slow as dialup and it's never very fast. Depending on the size of the file you are after, it might be quicker to drive home and get it. It's not network congestion. At Home's service was fast enough to be practical and had no blocked ports. All of Cox's new equipment has been technically superior where they are not using exaclty the same equipment. Content that takes forever to upload downloads lickty-split. Tech Support calls to Cox take a minimum of one hour. Calls to sales are answered quickly, then routed to local service with prejudice. The local service people are difficult to get in touch with and you will have to listen to much bad phone radio, mostly adverts telling you how wonderful Cox is. Once you get one, they will want to walk you through a standard script that involves rebooting your Windows computer and down powering your modem. They will try hard to connect to the back doors they install on your Windows PC and will be nonplussed if you don't have said back doors. The stock response to that is, "We don't support anything but Windows and Outlook Express". You may be able to short circuit the standard script by mentioning that you just bought a new cable modem and would like to have it provisioned. The magic words around Outlook Express support is "Tier One". You will be assigned a ticket number and then have to wait some more before one of the Tier One people attend to you. They are becoming less clueful and are more often repeating the "we don't support that" mantra themselves. If you don't have an hour to burn, don't make the call because you will just have to start all over again. Speaker phones are helpful. Still, you have little choice. Bell South is worse. For a time, I did NAT from a dialup account. I could tollerate that because I use Mozilla's advert blockers and I'm not intersted in sites that don't work that way. My wife, however, hated it to death. Like I said before, wellcome to hell. I'm told that there are a few places, like Chicago, that don't have problems like this but I'm afraid it's getting worse for everyone. On 2003.07.21 15:16 Bryce T. Pier wrote: > > > Does the cox modem do NAT? I don't mind having to share the outgoing IP > address but do want to have at least 3 machines on the network. It's > interesting that down here several ISPs want to charge more per month > for multiple machines behind a NAT, how the heck would they even know? > > -- > Bryce T. Pier [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
