Battle.net and IP addresses

[PortMaster]

I am wondering if anyone has been able to "beat" the battle.net IP address conflict
(cant log more than 1 computer on at a time from the same IP address) I have 2 IP's from my cable provider... and that works fine but I often find myself with more than 2 friends over my house at a time wanting to play STARCRAFT
(4 year old son calls it "STARCRAP")
we all have our own cd keys
(No piracy here :D )
I dont guess I need to give a run down of my network but it consist of 5 computers 3 running WIN98 SE
1 running WIN 2000 Porfessional
1 running Kondara MNU/Linux Server 2000 (not sure if i like it yet)
anyways what I am asking in a nutshell :D
My internet connection is good enough for many users to play "starcrap" so is there anyway to get more than 1 person on battle.net to play starcraft WITH THE SAME IP ADDRESS if so is it a program or just simple configration (I doubt that becuase I have tried every configuration there is with connection sharing and DHCP and NAT BLAH BLAH BLAH thanks

[C.M. Weaver]

If your running NAT or proxy software you will be unable to use more than 1 node behind your router, on Battle.NET.

Since a NAT router or NAT software changes the source IP (your internal machines) to that of the one assigned by your ISP. If you have only 1 IP assigned by your ISP and 10 nodes behind it, any data sent by ANY of those machines will always have the source IP assigned by your ISP.

The only way around this would be to get a higher end Cisco router that would allow you to assign pools of internal addresses (private local) statically to specific IP's (public global) assigned by your ISP.

[PortMaster]

I get this Error from battle.net when tring it that way "your network either blocks UDP packets or is operating too poorly to operate at this time you may chat only but cannot join any games" maybe I should'nt quote that :D ...it is something to that effect now when I disconnect one of the other computers from battlenet the one that stays is fine and all is good but when i connect the second one I get that error again
maybe I am doing something wrong if anyone thinks I am doing something wrong I will give the run down on my "network" ;) THANKS ALL

[PortMaster]

sorry I just re-read the reply from C.M. Weaver

I thought he said "WOULD BE ABLE" but he said "WOULD BE UNABLE" :eek: HEHE