Re: Comcast problems again

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:35:49PM -0500, Carey Tyler Schug wrote:
> And the first link is broken, the second one is supposed to be old
> (already old in 2005), yet already mentions many versions software
> for NAT, masquerading, PAT, etc., presumably now there are even
> more?   Or has there been the consolidation the document mentions
> was needed and there are fewer?  In any event, it doesn't seem wise
> to learn about how things were back in 2005 (last revision to the
> HOWTO), or 1998 (when it was started).

Maybe there's no newer source because things haven't, in fact, changed
in the meantime.  I've been running the local network behind NAT since
the mid-nineties (yeah, over dial-up), and aside from no longer needing
something tricky to manage the dratted dialup connection, it all works
much the same.  Perhaps you should read it instead of dissing it
without looking beyond the date.

> Would a proxy server would be indistinguishable from a single
> computer to comcast?

Depends on what aspects of the traffic they're picking up on.  If it's
simply volume, or frequency of simultaneous requests to different
sites, or some spoor in the request headers that identify different
OSes, etc., then... well, the last, probably, if configured to hide
that stuff (but that will mean that soem websites may not work as
expected, since they may deliver different versions based on these
indications); the rest, probably not.

> But all my local network would have to change.

Not at all.  Since you control the router that all traffic has to pass
through, you can capture the web traffic and force it through a proxy. 
You can find descriptions of this in some of those "obsolete" things
written years ago - none of this has really changed much in the last
decade.

-- 
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away,
for expedients, and by parts.  -- Edmund Burke

-- 
Linux Users Of Northern Illinois (Chicago) - Technical Discussion 
http://luni.org/mailman/listinfo/luni