I haven't found one yet, wreaks havoc on my letsencrypt cert processes. however https is not blocked. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Bob Elzer wrote: > thanks Stephen, the c7000 is listed at $199, i can get docsis 3.1 for less > than that. > > I just want my linux box which is my firewall in the dmz of my cable > modem for Cox cable. > > I'm also finding out they block port 80, anyone know if I can get that > lifted? > > The joys of switching ISPs > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 10:11 AM Stephen Partington > wrote: > >> you have 2 options, Im my case I used an ubiquity edgerouter lite and it >> has Wan +2 Lan ports and full commercial tools for management. but it can >> be set to amd a dmz on one port, and your network on the other port in very >> little time. >> https://www.ubnt.com/edgemax/edgerouter-lite/ >> >> If you want the All in one route, the other one I have used with great >> success is the netgear Nighthawk c7000, I only retired it when I moved from >> Cable to Fiber. >> >> https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/cable-modems-routers/C7000.aspx >> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:04 AM Bob Elzer wrote: >> >>> I need advice on a docs is 3.0 cable modem. >>> >>> I just bought a Motorola mb7220-10, it turns out there is nothing that >>> is configurable. >>> >>> It's hard coded to 192.168.100 and I want 192.168.0 >>> >>> There's no DMZ or port forwarding. This was not clear when I ordered it. >>> >>> So I'm looking for one that I can configure with a DMZ and set to >>> 192.168.0, I don't need WiFi and I'd like it to cost under $100. My >>> download speed will only be 30mb so I don't need docsis 3.1 >>> >>> Anyone have any recommendations? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 1:36 PM Stephen Partington >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In some places they even have fiber to the prem. (me) >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:02 PM Michael Butash >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You need to make sure your modem supports 3.1 too, don't forget that. >>>>> >>>>> Cox has just recently finished upgrading to all the new 3.1 hardware >>>>> here, and phoenix tends to be their technology leader market due to being >>>>> their biggest, so I'd be surprised if comcast has done more rural areas. >>>>> They always seem to be the first to fight any sort of rural network >>>>> legislation as they hate wasting their capital on non-rich areas, so make >>>>> sure they can even support the 8-24 channels down needed for those speeds. >>>>> You'd be amazed how screwed up cable plants can be in rural/old areas that >>>>> in some cases, they just cannot support the rates. Tempe was like this for >>>>> a long while here due to the original podunk cable co that built it. >>>>> >>>>> Cox is actually one of the better cable MSO's out there sadly. My >>>>> first job in tech in '99 was @home networks that pioneered cable modem >>>>> tech, and taught the cable behemoths about that little internet thing, and >>>>> dealing with them all from comcast, cox, intermedia, att, and others, cox >>>>> was always one of the least crappy of them. So much I even worked for them >>>>> after for a bit (more crappy to work for imho). Not perfect, but >>>>> definitely better. If you like to pirate media, oddly they were one of the >>>>> strongest to reject lawsuits, abuse subpoenas, and other media cartel >>>>> incursions on human rights, where comcast (being the ultimate media whore >>>>> thanks to corrupt/owned fcc) is the opposite... >>>>> >>>>> That said, I've been having more frequent outages (including 2 >>>>> yesterday) with Cox, and they're steadily warning and charging me for >>>>> bandwidth now, so I'm having Centurylink installed to check out that is >>>>> almost double the speed and $25 less than my cox bill now. As much as I >>>>> hate Centurylink, they don't have the bandwidth caps, that started with >>>>> Comcast coincidentally, and Cox can stick it now (pun intended) that they >>>>> impose them too if I'm just going to go over monthly. Joy of having both >>>>> services at least temporarily is I can steer traffic out either/both with >>>>> my Fortigate firewall with sd-wan features, so going to play a month or two >>>>> before I can one or the other to see... >>>>> >>>>> -mb >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Jim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I found out Tuesday what was causing me to not get the speed I was >>>>>> told I should get. Once again the Comcast guy I was talking to said he >>>>>> wanted to send out a repairman to find out why I wasn't getting the 150 >>>>>> Mbps everything told him I should be getting. Tuesday morning the >>>>>> repairman showed up with his supervisor. The supervisor told me the 150 >>>>>> Mbps speed is for customers in areas that are served with a docsis 3.1 >>>>>> network, but where I live is served by a docsis 3.1 network. Because of >>>>>> this I get 100 Mbps, but could get 150 if I wanted to pay more. Then he >>>>>> said the network in this area isn't able to supply everyone with 150 Mbps, >>>>>> and no he doesn't know when this area will be upgraded. I was amazed that >>>>>> all the corporate people I talked to didn't know that this was the case. >>>>>> They all said I should be getting 150. >>>>>> >>>>>> After the repairman and his boss left, I called and emailed the >>>>>> corporate people who had been telling me I should be getting 150 and told >>>>>> them what the local supervisor said. Later one of them called back and >>>>>> agreed with me that since I had been told I should be getting 150, that he >>>>>> would give it to me for the price I'm paying now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is Cox as fscked up as Comcast? >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from >>>> rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button. >>>> >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from >> rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button. >> >> Stephen >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss -- A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button. Stephen