I appreciate your perspective, and taking the time to inform this list, but...
I have had three Comcast installations going back over a decade, the most recent less than 3 years ago. In every single case, I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to lease (for about $10/month) and use Comcast equipment in order to get static IP addresses. I tried to escalate the issue and was told it was non-negotiable, end of story. So, no, I haven't "chosen to use an XB gateway rather than buy [my] own modem."
When I placed my orders, I specifically requested NO firewall or other extra security measures. In each and every case, the default installation had various kinds of blocking and filtering enabled, which I had to disable (sometimes with a truly monumental and expensive amount of effort, often later having to turn it off again when it is arbitrarily turned back on). So, no, I haven't "turned on Advanced Security."
Setting the router to bridge mode on my current install causes it to disconnect from all my static IP addresses, fetch a single address using DHCP, and respond only to that one. So that, too, is not an option.
So perhaps what you describe is the way things are *supposed* to work, but at least in my area (northern California) the folks in the field haven't got the memo.
That said, I've run Tor relays on my Comcast connections and never had problems with anything blocking Tor per se.
ยทยทยท
On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:49, Livingood, Jason via tor-relays <tor-relays@lists.torproject.org> wrote:
a customer that has Advanced Security has in essence (1) chosen to use an XB gateway rather than buy their own modem & router in retail and manage it themselves, and (2) turned on Advanced Security.
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays