Re: Changing Static IP addresses in Cable Modem

[Chris Davies]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> I don't claim to be a networking guru either (unless it's UUCP!).

Curious: do you still use UUCP, and if so, under what situations is it
better than IP?

Chris

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:44:36 -0600, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost>
wrote:

>He has some cheap off-brand wireless router hooked up to it and
>appears to be an out of the box config - DHCP to the cable modem, and
>the cable modem gives him the first static IP address assigned to him.
>The router then dishes out 192.168.x.x addresses to his 2 machines.

What's the maker and muddle number of the cable modem? Most Rotomola
cable modems can be configured by aiming a web browser at
192.168.100.1 and tinkering with the WAN/internet settings. If the
modem is setup for a static IP address, he should be able to change it
there.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Char Jackson]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:02:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:44:36 -0600, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost>
>wrote:
>
>>He has some cheap off-brand wireless router hooked up to it and
>>appears to be an out of the box config - DHCP to the cable modem, and
>>the cable modem gives him the first static IP address assigned to him.
>>The router then dishes out 192.168.x.x addresses to his 2 machines.
>
>What's the maker and muddle number of the cable modem? Most Rotomola
>cable modems can be configured by aiming a web browser at
>192.168.100.1 and tinkering with the WAN/internet settings. If the
>modem is setup for a static IP address, he should be able to change it
>there.

Are you sure about that? I've never seen a cable modem (plain cable
modem, not a combo modem-router) that allowed ANY configuration from
the LAN side. You can look, but you can't change anything.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:27:23 -0600, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>

Unfortunately, that's true. All provisioning is done via DHCP from
the CMTS.
<http://www.incognito.com/img/bcc/seq-docsis.html>
<http://www.cascaderange.org/presentations/DOCSIS_Cable_Modem_Connection_Process.pdf>
I was hoping that the unspecified cable modem might have been an
exception. For the businesses that want a static IP address from
Comcast, the DHCP server has a pre-assigned IP-MAC address pair, where
a specific MAC address always gets the same IP address. If that's the
way TWC works, then the IP address change will need to be done by TWC.

Of course, this begs the question why someone would want to change
their IP address.

[Jeff Liebermann]

I still use UUCP. It's running on 486DX2/66 with SCO Unix 3.2v4.2. It
has been up in more or less its present form since about 1988. I've
been waiting for the machine to die so I can replace it with something
modern, but as long as it works, there's no incentive. It's the 2nd
machine from the right:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/slides/mess01.html>

UUCP is much slower and much less efficient than POP3/SMTP/IMAP4 and
should not be used unless you have a good reason.



> 260> [je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us] [ttyp0] /u/jeffl
> => uutraf
> UUCP Traffic Report
> From: Jun 26 22:45 To: Nov 15 08:45
>
> Remote K-Bytes K-Bytes K-Bytes Hours Hours AvCPS AvCPS # # #
> SiteName Recv Xmit Total Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Con
> -------- --------- --------- --------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- ---- ---
> deeptht 67110.5 2548.3 69658.8 0.88 0.01 21621 64032 4644 260 1595
>
> Port K-Bytes K-Bytes K-Bytes Hours Hours AvCPS AvCPS # # #
> Name Recv Xmit Total Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Recv Xmit Con
> -------- --------- --------- --------- ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- ---- ---
> TCP,e 67110.5 2548.3 69658.8 0.88 0.01 21621 64032 4644 260 1595
>
> Active UUCP sites: 1 Total time recv: 0:52:58
> Active UUCP ports: 1 Total time xmit: 0:00:40
> Connections with work: 1,595 Total UUCP time: 0:53:39
>
> Total files rec'd: 4,644 Total bytes rec'd: 68,721,183
> Total files xmit: 260 Total bytes xmit: 2,609,440
> Total files: 4,904 Total bytes: 71,330,623

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:53:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>I still use UUCP. It's running on 486DX2/66 with SCO Unix 3.2v4.2. It
>has been up in more or less its present form since about 1988. I've
>been waiting for the machine to die so I can replace it with something
>modern, but as long as it works, there's no incentive. It's the 2nd
>machine from the right:
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/slides/mess01.html>
>
>UUCP is much slower and much less efficient than POP3/SMTP/IMAP4 and
>should not be used unless you have a good reason.

Incidentally, the entire operating system, with the C compiler and all
the log files, applications, and junk, only occupies about 200MBytes
of disk space and is running on 8 MBytes of RAM. Who needs
gigahertz, gigabytes, gigabucks, and gigabloat?

> 262> [je...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us] [ttyp0] /u/jeffl
> => df4
> Filesystem blocks (1Ke2) used free
> /dev/root 600002 292.96M 211.70M ( 72.3%) 81.26M ( 27.7%)
> /dev/u 600000 292.96M 264.20M ( 90.2%) 28.76M ( 9.8%)
> /dev/v 640000 312.50M 285.60M ( 91.4%) 26.89M ( 8.6%)
> /dev/news 105320 51.42M 4.00M ( 7.8%) 47.41M ( 92.2%)
>
> Total 1945322 949.86M 765.52M ( 80.6%) 184.33M ( 19.4%)


Uptime isn't so great because the battery in the UPS is almost dead.
It's usually many months and only needs a reboot when someone sends me
a monster attachment, or when I need to move things around the office.

> 263> [je...@comix.comix.santa-cruz.ca.us] [ttyp0] /u/jeffl
> => uptime
> 9:05am up 43 days, 5:42, 1 users, load average: 0.00, 0.20, 0.28

[do...@73.usenet.us.com]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> I still use UUCP. It's running on 486DX2/66 with SCO Unix 3.2v4.2. It
> has been up in more or less its present form since about 1988. I've

I ran a UUCP mail server on 486/66 Unixware for a long time, and never
converted to "on the web". It was the feed in and out for about 60 people
on the company LAN. The email uploads/downloads didn't clog up our
"internet" access, which was originally a shared dialup thingie, and later
DSL. A side effect of having the server in house was that people thought
our email was "really fast", essentially spooling locally at LAN speed,
then dribbling out to the internet at 9600 baud.

When I first connected via DSL, it automatically started sending SMTP
instead of UUCP, immediately resulting in bounced messages because we were
in a blacklisted "dialup" address pool, so I configured it to continue
UUCP, and ignore the internet connection.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5