Company Forums » Companies beginning with F » Frontier Communications > Siemens Gigaset SE567 Port Forward Problems

Siemens Gigaset SE567 Port Forward Problems

I manually went in and changed the settings on my SE567 to bridged. You just have to go into the ATC settings and change it over on there.

reply to mn wonder
I tried these directions from another forum, and this procedure (below) is exactly what the frontier help desk told me to do also. This didn't work.
>
[You may want to restore the factory defaults first and reestablish the default PPPoE connection using your login information on the modem.]

1. Attach your computer directly to a LAN port on the modem and log in as administrator to the modem interface.
2. Click on 'ISP Connection'
3. Click Advanced Settings, then click 'Configure the ATM Virtual Circuit'
4. Click Add a New VC
5. Set the VPI to 8 and the VCI to 35 (maybe these are different for your ISP...I guess you could simply mimic the settings that were associated with the default VC). Click Next
6. Select 'RFC-268 4 Bridged' (should be the first selection). Click Next.
7. Enter some name for the connection (i.e. Bridged 2684B(1) 8/35) and click Next then click Finish.
8. Disable the original PPPoE VC by clicking Disable.
9. Then delete all of the VCs except the one you just created.
10. Click ENABLE on the new bridged connection.
11. Click on REBOOT to reboot the modem.
12. You are now bridged.]

I even changed the LAN input jack on the back of the modem to WAN, and then connected to my Linksys. Still doesn't pass the real IP (bridge) thru to the Linksys.

Does anyone have a step by step of exactly how to configure the SE567 from beginning to end?

P.S. There are dedicated forums of people all over the internet now who are in the same exact position I am with this Siemens Gigaset SE567.

Thanks for the reply back

Dan

What I did, was rather than creating a new VC, I just edited the current one and changed it to a bridged connection. It has been working just fine for me ever since.
I just wish Frontier had been more honest about the speed issues in my area. I wouldn't have switched from Road Runner, with what I know now about Frontier.

reply to mn wonder
Here is the process I began with>

Enter> »192.168.254.254
Login> Admin Admin
Click on ISP Connection>Advanced Settings>Configure The ATM Virtual Circut.

Which then brings me to this screen>
0 0/35 PPPoE PPPoE 0/35 Disable Checkmark in box
1 8/35 PPPoE PPPoE 8/35 Enable
2 0/36 PPPoE PPPoE 0/36 Enable

After entering in the NEW VC (from the previous directions), I then deleted these above entries and hooked my computer to the LAN/WAN Jack. Did a CMD and IPCONFIG /Release and then a Renew. Still getting the router IP number of the SE567 Router Port and not the real IP from my ISP Provider/Host. Then, I hooked the Linksys Router upto the SE567 LAN/WAN Jack, major conflict between the two when doing this. Even after disabling the FireWall on the SE567 it still won't act like a Dum Modem like the SpeedStream 5200 was

Can you say frustrated in Minnesota. LoL

Dan

reply to mn wonder
Which is the "current one" you changed if I may ask and then did you delete the others?

I show line
#1 8/35 PPPoE PPPoE 8/35 Enable.
#2 0/36 PPPoE PPPoE 0/36 Enable.
Both current and enabled on boot up as a default from the factory

Mine was just line 1. I hadn't added any new ones, so I just went in and changed the setting on the existing one. I figured that since it worked, if I changed it to bridged, then there should be no problems with connecting, and there hasn't been.

reply to mn wonder
Sad News For Frontier.net Customers:

Today I ran into several frontier dsl folks who are in charge of upgrading the new system here in the state of Minnesota. What is to follow, is the information they gave me, and then we also did a test at my home so they could prove to me once and for all that the problem wasn't with my old SpeedStream (bridged) Modem dying.

First the tests. We tried four different types of SpeedStream 5200 Modems at my home. All had the same exact result. Lights would come on indicating a connection, but no handshake (lights blinking). This was also proved with the fact that we could not get out to the internet.

We then put the Siemens Gigaset SE567 in place of the SpeedStream 5200. Immediately there was a connection (lights on the front panel blinking) with a handshake. This was proved by acessing Google which came up on the monitor screen.

A discussion then followed for over 30 minutes as to why this was occuring.

The problem is not on the customers end!
The problem is at Frontier's end. They are changing things folks, plain and simple. They Do Not Want You to use port forwarding anymore and the IP Addesses will be business class if you want to do that. The PPPoE/Alcatel will not allow a Bridged Modem in the future, thus the SpeedStream 5200 Bridged model will no longer work. And, if you Succesfully Bridged the Siemens Gigaset SE567 Modem, it will only work that way for a short time until the change is system wide.

Case in point. The frontier folks then bridged my Siemens Gigaset SE567 and the result was the very same as the now non-working SpeedSteam 5200. Nope, doesn't work.. Once they put it back into PPPoE mode it works just fine.

So as of now, anyone that has a SpeedStream 5200 or similar bridged modem, their time of life is coming to an end.

I made my case to the frontier people that competition is good and that what I'm paying for 3Meg Down with a voice telephone is costing me $60.00. However, I can jump right over to Charter Communications (another internet provider) and get 10Meg Down for $34.99, first six months, and then $59.99 after that. It now makes very little sense to stay with Frontier if they indeed plan to Restrict Port Forwarding.

*Note: I wanted to use Windows Media Encoder using Port Forward for use with a NannyCam every now and then to check on my child at home. It worked before with the SpeedStream 5200, but not anymore*.

Frontier's Response: "Most people don't use features like Port Forwarding, and that their service was never intended to be used for streaming video, audio or anything else other then just downloading as the vast majority of Frontier's DSL Customers do". "If you want to do those other things such as Port Forwarding and etc., you need to pay for a Business Class DSL".

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the time these guys took to finally answer questions that the Frontier Help Desk Denied, or said was an outright lie by people in the field.
These Frontier guys proved it by showing me the problem along with explaining it to me.

Thank God someone was finally honest about what is really going and the future plans of Frontier.net

I plan on calling Charter Communications tomorrow (Wednesday). After being with Frontier over five years and never having a problem with their DSL service, it now comes to this

P.S. All the days and time I spent trying to figure out a problem that Frontier Created, and then for the Frontier Help Desk to tell me (repeatedly) the problem was on MY END!

reply to mn wonder

reply to mn wonder

reply to mn wonder
I think the main problem is that you changed your VC to a 8/35 VPI-VCI. I'm pretty sure even with my new PPPoE modem that I am still running on the 0/35 VC channel. This channel must match up on either end of the pipe (Modem to DSLAM port) otherwise you will not pass traffic. You will still be able to sync up on the DSL side but traffic will never pass because the VC configuration does not match up. PPPoE vs PPPoA should NOT mandate a change in the VC (at least it wouldn't in a network I design) rather it will be something in the network that will authenticate both PPPoA and PPPoE instead of just PPPoA.
--
Westley: Give us the gate key.

Yellin: I have no gate key.

Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.

Yellin: Oh, you mean *this* gate key.

reply to mn wonder
AN EASIER WAY TO BRIDGE A SIEMENS 567 TO A LINKSYS WIRELESS ROUTER

Frontier replaced my SpeedStream 5200 with a Siemens SE567 and when the tech guy saw my Linksys SRX200 wireless router, he said that it was a far superior wireless box then the Siemens. So he bridged the Siemens to the SRX200 and unfortunately, I really didn't pay attention to how he did it. But everything worked superfine until my son and I decided to rearrange some of our computer gear.

We thought we would try the Siemens all in one box (DSL modem/wireless router). As already noted by others, documentations is non existent but after some hard resets we got it working. The wired (Ethernet) ports worked perfectly but the wireless side really sucked. Basically, if you weren't within spitting range of the Siemens box, the wireless signal was erratic and was often dropped. If we rebooted one of our wireless laptops that was not near the Siemens box (which had been connected OK), it refused to reconnect without re-booting the Siemens box. After tinkering with this for about a week, including relocating the Siemens box, we took the Linksys SRX200 out of storage.

I thought bridging to the SRX200 was going to be a nightmare based on everything I read in this and other posts. However, my son, a network guru, found an much easier solution which is as follows.

BRIDGING SIEMENS SE567 TO LINKSYS SRX200 WIRELESS ROUTER

Make/Ensure the following setting in the Siemens:

Under Local Gateway IP Network Custom Settings
-Ensure DCHP Server is enabled
-Default Gateway has WAN checked.
-IP Range was reduced to 15 (optional).

LAN is checked on LAN/WAN Port Screen (yes - LAN, not WAN)

The Gateway Wireless is Disabled

UPnP is Disabled.

Under Security, the Firewall was Disabled (would be duplicate effort to the SRX200).

No changes were made to the ISP Connection - ATM settings. The ISP Connection was left at PPPoE 8/35.

A short RJ45 cable was connected between port 4 (LAN/WAN) on the Siemens and the Internet connection on the SRX200. All RJ45 cables were moved to the Linksys as well.

On the SRX200 the only change necessary was in Internet Setup Screen. Change PPPoE to Automatic Configuration - DCHP. Configure the Linksys for the desired security and wireless access.

In addition to avoid the nightmare of bridging the Siemens, another benefit is I can plug a RJ45 cable into the Siemens and my laptop I can still access it by entering 192.168.254.254. Of course we can access our Linksys SRX200 anytime by entering 192.168.1.1.

Everything is solid as a rock, signal strength 5 times better than the Siemens, no dropouts, no loss of download speed, no problems, all is well.

This wouldn't be bridging the Siemens Gigaset SE567. The SE567, would still be acting as a router. That is what enabling the DCHP means.

reply to joep42

Doctor Olds (I'm a former Buick 455 muscle car owner) - you are right, I can access my Siemens without a cable. Thanks.

I learn something new everyday. My question now: Is one method of using the SE567/Linksys SRX200 combo better than the other? In other words, bridge the Siemens SE567 (by editing the VC settings) to the Linksys or running as I have now with DHCP set to Automatic on the SRX200? Right now everything in the later mode is rock solid and I ran Steve Gibson's Shields Up suite and passed with flying colors.

I read your comments about opening ports. I have NAP disabled on the Siemens, but not NAPT. My college age kids have been playing World of War Craft (one wirelessly, one on Ethernet) without a hiccup.

So - should I leave well enough alone (if it ain't broke don't fix it) or should I bridge the Siemens for better performance?

Thanks again (retired geek).

Whatever you'd like to do. Bridging won't allow you to get modem stats should you ever have a problem, but it will allow you to do port forwarding and such a lot better than the Seimens can do.

reply to joep42
If it ain't broke, then of course you are OK to leave it as currently configured now. Performance wise, you won't see any speed changes with either setup. The only thing that would be possible is issues with complex applications requiring special Port Forwarding. If you have no current problems now, then you can of course leave it just as it is. If you ever do run into any issues, then you may want to Bridge Mode the SE567, but until then enjoy.

When I posted NAT/NAPT, I meant it as either/or not concurrent. NAPT is really a subset of NAT, yet different Router Makers use different terms. I personally subscribe to the Siemens definition (see image below). NAT is a "one to one" translation (1 Public to 1 Private) while NAPT is a "one to many" translation (1 Public to Many Private) then there is Concurrent NAT/NAPT which we will not go over now as it requires a Static Public WAN IP. The default is NAPT Only in the Siemens/Efficient Product Line.

reply to Smith6612

I forgot you could there lol, thanks Doctor Olds. It sounds like it's the same way I would access my Verizon Westell modem if I had it bridged.