I think Catoosa is correct. They really don't care if you have a reuter. But, they refuse to give tech support for one. So, if something happens, some of the tech people will refuse to help you. Some don't care and will help you anyways.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Routers-who is right at Comcast?
- Thread starter duke1702
- Start date
Comcast's language isn't bizarre. They're saying that you are NOT allowed to share your connection outside of your domicile - i.e., you cannot be an end point on a non-Comcast LAN (which is what you would be if you were allowing your neighbors access via WiFi).
They don't care how many of your own machines you connect to the WAN via a NAT router.
As far as File and Printer sharing goes - their references to it in their text are for people who might connect a PC naked (without router) to the WAN but have file and printer sharing enabled with other computers on a home LAN - which could be exploited from the outside.
I have multiple machines connected via a router and they all have file and printer sharing enabled - but since the router is firewalling the inside LAN, there is no exposure.
They don't care how many of your own machines you connect to the WAN via a NAT router.
As far as File and Printer sharing goes - their references to it in their text are for people who might connect a PC naked (without router) to the WAN but have file and printer sharing enabled with other computers on a home LAN - which could be exploited from the outside.
I have multiple machines connected via a router and they all have file and printer sharing enabled - but since the router is firewalling the inside LAN, there is no exposure.
Quote from duke1702:
I have cable modem from Comcast. I am getting a second computer and called Comcast twice about getting a second IP address. The first guy said if I get a router, then I don't need to pay $4.95/month for an additional IP address. I called again and second guy said that I have to pay for an additional IP address, router or not. He said that Comcast does "internet audits" that will retroactively bill me for having the second computer on the internet through Comcast. Which guy is right ?
IP sharing cannot be audited: Pay for one IP and the router with built in DHCP and NAT allows multiple users to share the IP.
Unless you are using very large bandwidth - traders workstations dont - then you dont need additional IPs.
Actually IP sharing CAN be audited with monitors doing packet inspection and looking at the NAT header that's carried in the packets.Quote from CalTrader:
IP sharing cannot be audited
However, the real key point is that Comcast does NOT care how many machines you're using at your own house that are sharing the single WAN connection. Consequently, they have no interest in bothering to try to audit the traffic.
Quote from ArchAngel:
Actually IP sharing CAN be audited with monitors doing packet inspection and looking at the NAT header that's carried in the packets.
However, the real key point is that Comcast does NOT care how many machines you're using at your own house that are sharing the single WAN connection. Consequently, they have no interest in bothering to try to audit the traffic.
What I should have said was that no sane organization would attempt this level of processing: the costs would far, far, exceed the cost of providing the service. In practice, IP sharing can not be audited. In fact, if this was attempted it could be easily stopped by changing the algorithm in hardware - some products already do this .
I run 4 computers through a router that the Comcast tech support guy helped me set up over the phone (although they don't officially support it), never any problems. If you need multiple static IP addresses for some reason (If you don't know the reason, you don't need them....), then it will cost you the extra $5.
Jessie
Jessie
I don't know about Comcast, but SBC (Pacbell) DSL charges for the number of computers on the line, regardless of whether you're using a single IP address with a NAT router or multiple IP addresses with one per computer.
Here's the trick: DON'T TELL SBC THAT YOU'RE USING A ROUTER TO ATTACH MORE THAN ONE PC TO A SINGLE IP ADDRESS. If you do, they charge you more.
SBC likes to overcharge anyway. Many of my customers (I do computer consulting) were originally set up with entire subnets (usually six usable static IP addresses, one gateway, one broadcast) when they naively told SBC they had two or three computers. SBC didn't care that they only needed two IP addresses; Their DSL bills were $200 to $300 per month, more than running two separate $50/month single DSL lines into their office! I told them to call SBC back and downgrade to a single DCHP'd IP address. Then, I set up a Linksys wireless firewall router, NAT the private network, and tell the client to never tell SBC they have more than one PC on the line. Saved 'em bundles!
Here's the trick: DON'T TELL SBC THAT YOU'RE USING A ROUTER TO ATTACH MORE THAN ONE PC TO A SINGLE IP ADDRESS. If you do, they charge you more.
SBC likes to overcharge anyway. Many of my customers (I do computer consulting) were originally set up with entire subnets (usually six usable static IP addresses, one gateway, one broadcast) when they naively told SBC they had two or three computers. SBC didn't care that they only needed two IP addresses; Their DSL bills were $200 to $300 per month, more than running two separate $50/month single DSL lines into their office! I told them to call SBC back and downgrade to a single DCHP'd IP address. Then, I set up a Linksys wireless firewall router, NAT the private network, and tell the client to never tell SBC they have more than one PC on the line. Saved 'em bundles!