That was pretty much my experience, word for word, except that I didn't even
bother with Win95 originally.
They only say it doesn't work because it's not supported. It really does;
they're just lying or don't know any
 better. Your Win95 problem was probably driver related, not an
incompatibility with the hardware.

> ----------
> From: 	James Wetterau[SMTP:jwjr@name.net]
> Sent: 	Thursday, October 22, 1998 5:16 PM
> To: 	Calvin Vette (IT- Borders Online)
> Cc: 	'Brad Salai'; port-i386@netbsd.org
> Subject: 	Re: NAT Trouble 
> 
> 
> Interesting -- I too use MediaOne and they had told me I'd need to
> have Windows 95 (or possibly NT, I forget) installed for the
> technician to finish the installation.  They also told me they had to
> ascertain the ethernet address on the spot, and they even went so far
> as writing it down and communicating it to some other technician
> elsewhere via walkie-talkie when they tried a different card later due
> to problems with the first one, though possibly that was only
> necessary due to the change in cards.  I guess maybe they've automated
> some of this since September, or maybe it's different in different
> regions (my MediaOne service is in Cambridge, Massachusetts).  Also
> maybe they're now willing to let you accept the risk that something is
> wrong, but they didn't say so to me.  However, that surely would have
> been a bad idea in my case since my ethernet card had some sort of
> incompatability with their modem.  And it was a subtle
> incompatability, too, since it only prevented proper dhcp functioning
> at boot time under Windows 95, but not subsequently.  Whether it would
> have worked better, or worse, or at all under NetBSD is an open
> question.  The upshot was that the technicians gave me a 3com ethernet
> card at no charge.
> 
> I installed NetBSD subsequently to the cable modem installation and
> went through basically the process you describe here, with the added
> hiccough that I'm using ipnat and had a somewhat stripped down kernel
> without ip filter support so I needed to add that back in.  I also
> needed to add a second ethernet card for my internal LAN.  The
> MediaOne techs would not install the service while the machine had two
> ethernet cards, by the way.
> 
> Regards, 
> James Wetterau
> 
> "Calvin Vette (IT- Borders Online)" says:
> > It was pretty straight forward. I called the cable company (Mediaone),
> let
> > them run the initial wiring install and modem check, asked them to leave
> the
> > Ethernet card and Win95 software and instructions in the box, then
> plugged
> > the modem into my Ethernet card. From there, I ran dhcpclient, and that
> was
> > it. Once it was working, I enabled dhcpclient into my /etc/rc.conf, and
> used
> > their CD as a coaster.
> > 
> > > ----------
> > > From: 	Brad Salai[SMTP:bsalai@tmonline.com]
> > > Sent: 	Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:06 PM
> > > To: 	Calvin Vette (IT- Borders Online); James Snow; 'Scott
> Bartram'
> > > Cc: 	port-i386@netbsd.org
> > > Subject: 	RE: NAT Trouble
> > > 
> > > Would you be willing to post, or point to information on how you got a
> > > connection to a cable modem up? I am interested, and I know many
> others
> > > are
> > > as well. In our area, the cable modem provider is Time Warner, (Road
> > > Runner)
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > Brad
> > > 
> > > At 1:59 PM -0400 10/22/98, Calvin Vette (IT- Borders Online) wrote:
> > > >I had a similar problem with 1.3.1/1.3.2 with a cable modem and an
> > > internal
> > > >Ethernet network. I just upgraded to current, but haven't finished
> the
> > > >configuration yet. Is the patch you're talking about included in
> > > >current-981008?
> > > >
> > > >> ----------
> > > >> From: 	Scott Bartram[SMTP:scottb@orionsoft.com]
> > > >> Sent: 	Thursday, October 22, 1998 1:24 PM
> > > >> To: 	James Snow
> > > >> Cc: 	port-i386@netbsd.org
> > > >> Subject: 	Re: NAT Trouble
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Is your setup such that outbound packets are sent via the PPP
> (serial
> > > >> port) link and inbound packets are received on the cable modem? If
> so,
> > > you
> > > >> need to patch the NAT code in the kernel. Let me know what version
> of
> > > >> NetBSD you're running and I'll send you a patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> scott
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, James Snow wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks to everyone who helped me with my com port/modem problem.
> I've
> > > >> > subsequently set up PPP without a hitch, but following the
> directions
> > > >> for
> > > >> > NAT has got me stumped.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've got ipfilter compiled into the kernel., and I have it
> enabled in
> > > >> > /etc/rc.conf. I have an empty /etc/ipf.conf, the following in
> > > >> > /etc/netstart.local:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >    if [ -f /etc/ipnat.conf ]; then
> > > >> >                   echo 'starting IP network address translation
> > > >> (ipnat)...';
> > > >> >                   /usr/sbin/ipnat -f /etc/ipnat.conf
> > > >> >         fi
> > > >> >
> > > >> > and the following in /etc/ipnat.conf:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > map ppp0 10.0.0.0/24 -> 0/32 portmap tcp/udp 40000:60000
> > > >> > map ppp0 10.0.0.0/24 -> 0/32
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm a little confused about those numbers following the portmap
> > > command.
> > > >> > Do they represent the range of ports that the machine will resend
> > > NATed
> > > >> > packets from or the range of ports that a packet to be NATed must
> be
> > > >> > coming from?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Back to the NAT problem though, with the above setup and one of
> the
> > > >> other
> > > >> > machines here set to use the NetBSD box as its gateway, nothing
> > > happens.
> > > >> > The output of ipnat -ls remains as follows:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > mapped  in      0       out     0
> > > >> > added   0       expired 0
> > > >> > inuse   0
> > > >> > rules   2
> > > >> > List of active MAP/Redirect filters:
> > > >> > map ppp0 10.0.0.0/24  -> 0.0.0.0/32  portmap tcp/udp 40000:60000
> > > >> > map ppp0 10.0.0.0/24  -> 0.0.0.0/32
> > > >> >
> > > >> > List of active sessions:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I can verify with tcpdump that the client machine is indeed
> making
> > > >> > requests and they are making it to the gateway, but the NAT
> doesn't
> > > seem
> > > >> > to see tem at all.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Anyone have any ideas?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks in advance,
> > > >> > James Snow
> > > >>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Stephen B. Salai                            Phone (716) 325-5553
> > > Cumpston & Shaw                             Fax    (716) 262-3906
> > > Two State Street                            email bsalai@tmonline.com
> > > Rochester, NY 14614
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>