"Calvin Vette (IT- Borders Online)" says:
> 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.

They didn't tell me it doesn't work -- they told me the installation
is not complete until they've verified the ethernet address of the
machine connecting to their network via dhcp and they don't know how
to or want to deal with learning how to do that under other OS's.  But
the sales guy quite helpfully told me I was free to move the ethernet
card to another machine after they were done, or install a different
OS on the machine then, etc.  On the whole, I was very impressed with
their competence in comparison to say, my phone company.  By contrast
with friends' stories of even simple things like ISDN installation it
went very smoothly.

As far as the card I had, it was the cheapest I could find that was
supposed to be the same chipset as the 3Com from the mediaone
supported hardware list.  The box also boased about its compatability
with 3com, but who knows?

As to NAT, it's officially disallowed to use your MediaOne cable modem
for traffic from multiple computers, but on their newsgroups they tell
you how to do it using Linux.  The semi-official rationale is that
they're only really concerned with people going into business as
mini-ISPs by way of their network.

Regards,
James Wetterau
...


> 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>