Actually, the last time I checked, you had to have @Work Professional.
Basic @Work is for up to 3 clients (though I don't think they took IPNAT
into account for those who want to bend the rules). I think it's $100
per "client" (IP) up to 3, then you have to go to Pro. @Work Basic
doesn't allow you to run your servers on the line, but @Work Pro does.
It's been about a year since I looked. I could be wrong.
Jeffrey Pyne wrote:
>
> Technically, Cox' ToS makes running any services verboten. However, near as
> I can tell, they are not doing any port filtering to prevent this. They do
> port scan occasionally, but it always comes from an IP address (usually the
> same one) in the 24.x.x.x block. So, theoretically, one could have web,
> mail, DNS, etc. running on a segment on one's LAN. And one could
> theoretically have, for example, an OpenBSD firewall that allows access to
> these services in your "DMZ" by redirecting this traffic with ipfilter and
> ipnat. And one could theoretically block access from the entire 24.x.x.x
> block (one might block the whole range just in case Cox decided to change
> the host from which they do their port scanning-- although they haven't in a
> while). So if Cox were to theoretically scan your theoretical IP address
> looking for theoretical services, none would appear (in theory). And if one
> had friends or family on the 24.x.x.x block (e.g. Sprint/Speedchoice users,
> or other Cox users), one could, in theory, put a rule in this theoretical
> OpenBSD firewall to allow the specific IP address of these friends/family to
> access your theoretical services. Not that _I_ would *ever* do this, mind
> you. It's against the ToS, after all. ;-) ("Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
> Say no more.... A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.")
>
> So if you want to run services on Cox' network, it can be done. However, if
> you want to have more than just a personal web server that you and your
> friends and family access from time to time, and your site is going to be
> generating lots of traffic, you should probably go with Cox @Work. Same
> network (I think), it just costs more. But services are "allowed."
>
> Theoretically yours,
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Toft [mailto:george@georgetoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:41 AM
> To: PLUG Discuss
> Subject: Cox and Linux - info needed
>
> Thanks for the Qwest info. It would seem Qwest "is less than optimal"
> for running web/DNS/mail at home. What about Cox@home? Is it any
> better for this?
>
> I had a really good experience with cable in Hawaii (typically > 2mbit,
> sometimes as high as 5mbit), yet L.A. blew chunks (typically 15-20Kbit
> and totally useless Friday/Saturday night). I have 640K ADSL from Qwest
> now (in A.J.) and I love it (except for the Intel 2100 WinCableModem).
>
> George
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post
> to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--
Digital Wokan, Tribal Mage of the Electronics Age
Guerilla Linux Warrior
(text/plain)