Cable modem question
 

I have been renting a modem from Cox for $10/month which I know is crazy. I am looking to buy a new cable modem. Anyone have an idea as to what kind I should buy? Where to buy it? Cox does have a list of approved modems, but there are a bunch. I would like to get the best I can and am not that worried about the lowest price.

Thanks for any info.

Bob Dole bought a 3Com OfficeConnect model 4+ years ago and it has been bulletproof.

My only recommendation is to buy a "bridge" modem.

One that doesn't do the actual NATing itself. This way you can put whatever router/firewall device you want in place and change it out whenever you want.

I had a Motorola SBG1000 which I thought was really cool at the time (router/firewall/wireless/printer server/POTS networking/etc.) and I dropped it after a year because the firewall wasn't as customizable as I would have liked. I should have realized this since I was moving from a Checkpoint and Raptor combo, but I was just getting lazy.

I am very computer illiterate. I turn it on and do my thing. I would not be doing any customizing...altering...anything like that. Looking for a "plug it in and use it" type of modem. No idea what a "bridge" modem would be.

If you want simple and easy, go with the Linksys WCG200.

It has a DOCSIS 2.0 cable modem built-in, and has a NAT router, firewall, 4-port switch, and wireless.

I just moved away from a similar setup because most of those devices don't allow custom port/protocol rulesets, actual non-NAT'd public IPs on systems, and wireless repeating.

But, based on the "simple" thing, none of this may be relevant.

The WCG200 supports custom port and protocol rulesets, including static (1:1) NAT, hide-NAT (1-to-many NAT), PAT, and port triggering (listening on a port and translating that traffic to a different destination port).

The one thing it doesn't support is full routing (passing traffic to interior hosts that are not NAT'd) and I can't for the life of me figure out why the hell you'd want to do that, unless you're putting up a honeypot for people to hack.

Or running security vulnerability detection tools.

NAT and PAT really screw up the results on those.

EDIT: I haven't tried the WCG200, but not supporting outside IP addresses means I need a bridge so I can use a hub AFTER the modem for a firewall and external device. Also, I've had trouble finding a device that supports multiple public IP addresses. On DSL I ran a ton of servers, ever since I moved to cable I've had to "jerry rig" external communications.

Renting a modem? I'm glad TimeWarner doesn't do that. It's bad enough they charge me $45/Mo. for RR...

Well I kept my cable modem from the cable co when I moved since price doesn't really matter I'll make you a good deal :p

You're all heart...:)

I'll ship it to ya for free, thats the best I can offer , if of course you dish out enough dough ROFL

Of course, the QKC 25.7 modemizer needs to be backwards compatible with the rz9800-link operator.

Exactly. If you're doing some kind of security testing, it makes sense to have machines fully exposed to the Internet (ie. no NAT). The best solution for that is to get a broadband modem and plug it into a standard IP router.

Which is what I had to do, but I was surprised there were no "combo" type units that could provide that functionality.

Spent $500 at CompUSA recently during the Netgear blow out and bought a new bridging modem, cheapo router, firewall appliance, and 4 wireless APs that can function as repeaters plus a wireless bridging AP for my outside IP addresses and some new g cards. I like being able to work from my back deck with a view of the mountains.

Sometimes I just tend to forget that most people don't need that kind of functionality and can get away with a simple setup.