AT&T broadband lockdown

[richb at pioneer.ci.net (richb at pioneer.ci.net)]

Derek Martin <ddm at pizzashack.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 07:33:39AM -0400, David Lapointe wrote:
> > This seems to say it clearly.
> >
> > "AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem.
> > This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server."
> 
> May be so, but the subscriber agreement includes text which sugests
> (though does not outright SAY) that it IS o.k. to run servers.  The
> above is not part of your subscriber agreement...
> of crap.

OK, so in the interests of conserving IPv4 space (which costs money for
AT&T to maintain), the next logical step is to hand everyone an RFC1918
IP address in the 10.0.0.0/8 range and NAT all users through some big
hairy/buggy firewall.

Jack Coats <Jack at coats.org> wrote:
> I have got around this kind of 'agreement' by finding a cheap
> colo/co-hosting place and use it as a 'gateway' server.  I can even ssh
> tunnel to it and effectively vpn from there to my home server.

Ah hah!  You *admit* your wrong-doing here in a public forum!
Sneakily running a port-22 ssh *server*, are you?  That's strictly
against the rules.  *Encrypting* your *business-oriented* traffic, are
you?  Tut tut.  You should contact AT&T Business Solutions about T1
services for your lucrative home business.

Just wait'll the NAT thing comes along in force.  Everyone will have to
shell out extra for a publicly-routable IP.  Today's debate over dynamic
versus static will pale by comparison.

-rich
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).