On Sep 25, 22:46, Tzahi Fadida wrote:
} Subject: RE: Actcom without a dailer costs more
> Just wanted to point out, that if a user is smart enough to hack the modem
> to remove the bandwidth limits he is smart enough to reprogram the MAC address
> (a feature that is not uncommon on pro modem/routers).
>
> Regards,
> tzahi.
Then he will not be able to get authenticated (his MAC will not
belong to any registered user) and thus will not be able to connect.
If he uses a MAC which belongs to a registered user than the ISP and
the Cable company will note the clash and will catch him.
Amir
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:22 PM
> > To: Ilya Konstantinov; Nadav Har'El
> > Cc: Linux-IL
> > Subject: Re: Actcom without a dailer costs more
> >
> > On Sep 24, 4:18, Ilya Konstantinov wrote:
> > } Subject: Re: Actcom without a dailer costs more
> > > On ×', 2005-09-22 at 10:41 +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > > > The strange thing is that for some reason, getting this
> > sort of dialer-less
> > > > setup required fighting with the cable company.
> > >
> > > Actually, for the reasons already specified, it's the ISPs who are
> > > actually not interested in those deals: it complicates
> > abuse tracking
> > > and, more important, it makes applying the service package
> > limitations
> > > more difficult -- they either need to ask the cable company
> > to notify
> > > them of any subscription upgrade/downgrade requested by the
> > user, or do
> > > IP-based traffic shaping (rather than interface-based).
> > >
> > > With IP-based traffic shaping, what if you acquire all the
> > 3 IPs (Max
> > > CPE limit) you're allowed to? Will they let you full
> > bandwidth for each
> > > of the computers (assuming you inflated your cables subscription and
> > > didn't notify them)?
> >
> > I didn't mention it in my original answer. But the use of dialer is
> > needed by the ISPs not only for traffic tracking. Without a dialer,
> > when we get an abuse report on an IP (say a spam, virus, hack or fraud
> > report) we DON'T have a way to locate the user! If we block
> > the IP, the
> > user eventually gets a new IP and our blocking is useless. Moreover -
> > some other user eventually gets the blocked IP and calls for
> > support...
> >
> > Regarding speed limit, this is not a main issue with Cable
> > connection
> > due to a procedure between HOT and the ISPs of mutual
> > updates. However,
> > as someone mentioned, with a direct connection (without a dialer) in
> > principle the user can bypass the speed limitation in the modem and
> > the ISP cannot prevent and even cannot detect that. Limitation per IP
> > cannot be done because without a dialer the user gets a
> > random IP which
> > the ISP doesn't know (and also the user can get up to 3 IPs).
> >
> > We are going to start a project to solve this problem. The idea is
> > that users without a dialer will get authenticated according to their
> > MAC address (we will have to get the DHCP records from HOT in
> > real time).
> > This will allow us to track the traffic and to shape the
> > speed, without
> > a need for L2TP or PPTP termination (this project is done on Linux, of
> > course), and eventually connect all of our Cable users
> > without a dialer.
> >
> > Amir
> >
> > =================================================================
> > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
