@home

[Jon]

one ip from at work runs 200 a month.  I checked.  256 guarenteed.  real support ( was one guy a year ago ).  Wish there were more options.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:52:29PM -0500, Smith, Daniel E. wrote:
> The only thing that every one is forgetting is that in the @home contract is
> says that you are forbidden to run a server on your cable modem connection.
> So If you are, they do have the right by the contract to take away your
> service. I know it sucks but that is why they have the more expensive @work,
> and you can always get dsl. If you buy static ip's (about $120 a month) you
> can do what ever you want.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Pfile [mailto:pfiled at marietta.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 4:46 PM
> To: olug at bstc.net
> Subject: Re: @home
> 
> 
> BTW, my cable modem is a CyberSURFER Wave Modem. The thin dark grey one.
> 
> If this thing about only newer modems blocking port is true, that means the 
> modems have the ability to block ports. There's also a web interface on 
> those modems.
> 
> So it seems like the logical sane solution for cox at home, the internet, and 
> the users is to:
> 
> 1: Cap upstream to 256k (done, used to be good enough...)
> 2: Disable incomming ports for known insecure services in the cable modem
> 3: Allow a user to re-enable these ports with the modem's web interface
> 4: Disable the ability to turn on ports if the user is using a huge amount 
> of bandwidth. You don't have to monitor trafic, SNMP should suffice, just 
> if the user is using 90% of their upstream for 7 days solid, contact them, 
> let the know the problem (a warning), if they continue, kill their ports.
> -- or --
> 4: If the machine is reported used in a DOS/DDOS attack, block the ports to 
> stop the attack and let the user know.
> 
> Not perfect, but I just woke up from a nap and I'm a bit groggy, so feel 
> free to correct me.
> 
> -- Daniel