I'm fairly certain that it was true at one time that they didn't want customers doing NAT. See, for example,
http://slashdot.org/yro/02/01/24/1957236.shtml However, I didn't think they restricted that anymore, but I don't really know, having never been a Comcast customer. I'd also like to point out that there are equally crazy TOS for most other ISPs. So, for example, when you get that huge Verizon FIOS pipe they're asking you to agree to something that nominally would prevent you from being able to take much advantage of all that upstream bandwidth. Generally you have to get a "business" connection to get rid of these restrictions, except with a few ISPs like Speakeasy. These restrictions are largely unenforced, but they have the beneficial (for the ISP) effect of giving them essentially arbitrary power to decide what activity they will allow, since technically all of it is violating. This is fundamentally a bad thing. Regards, Nick Paul Donohue wrote: >> be able to...), something like the earlier suggestion of a super-cheap >> linux device probably won't work since you aren't supposed to stick a >> NAT behind your cable modem. >> > I don't believe I've ever seen anything in the Comcast TOS that prohibits NAT > devices. In fact, I do believe Comcast will provide you a NAT box (at a > cost) if you tell them you intend to hook up multiple machines to the cable > modem. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
