dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3223
share rss forum feed

wolrah

join:2005-12-29
Medina, OH

[Modem] Motorola 2247, static IP, separate router

I have a site with an Earthlink-provided Moto 2247-62 that appears to have a customized firmware (FW version is 7.8.4 where Motorola's own web site shows 7.7.4 as the latest version) which does not have the "IP Passthrough" feature.

We are using our own router and can not be behind a NAT, but PPPoE is a terrible, terrible thing and we'd like to keep that entirely on the ISP's hardware. How can we get this thing to give us back the feature Earthlink has apparently stolen from us? What we want is simple, the modem deals with the PPPoE trash and then either hands us our IP via DHCP or allows us to have a normal IP/gateway setup for our static IP. Basically from our router's perspective it should look like a proper internet connection. We do NOT want to deal with PPPoE on our router, it's more trouble than it's worth.

edit: To be clear, we have a single static IP, not a subnet, so we can not set the modem up as a non-NAT router.



wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1

What prevents you from forwarding the needed ports


wolrah

join:2005-12-29
Medina, OH

We're doing VoIP, so dynamic ports. Also it's just better if our router has the actual WAN IP bound to its WAN port.

I'm not going to do a silly workaround that's going to cause me trouble down the road just because an ISP insists on using junk protocols and junk modems.

NAT is bad, PPPoE is technically good but the way it's been used by every DSL carrier is nothing but a pain to those who can't use the generally terrible modem/router combos.



wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1

said by wolrah:

We're doing VoIP, so dynamic ports

The 2247 should have a Default Server option that will direct all unsolicited traffic to the designated Default Server
said by wolrah:

Also it's just better if our router has the actual WAN IP bound to its WAN port

Configuring the 2247 for bridge mode and configuring the router for pppoe will result in the public ip being allocated to the routers wan port

wolrah

join:2005-12-29
Medina, OH

said by wayjac:

Configuring the 2247 for bridge mode and configuring the router for pppoe will result in the public ip being allocated to the routers wan port

That's what we're doing temporarily, but it's not ideal. The problem is that PPPoE problems pop up far more often than they should and are very challenging to diagnose remotely. Either the ISP decides to change the password for some reason or their hardware simply isn't responding to discovery requests. Since PPPoE causes us so much trouble, we'd much rather the responsibility for that part of things be left entirely on ISP-controlled equipment so we can simply say "it's down, fix it" rather than having to get someone competent on site to packet sniff it and determine what exactly is failing (usually so we can then call the ISP anyways and tell them what's broken in their setup).

If a site is too remote for us to send a tech (in this case the site is in Atlanta and I'm in Cleveland, so obviously on-site visits are not an option) the only "troubleshooting" choice this leaves us with is telling the users at the site to keep restarting the modem and router until it works.

The modem itself supports "IP Passthrough" which is exactly what we want, but Earthlink seems to have disabled this feature.

As a side note, due to the problems discussed above I believe PPPoE is the worst thing to ever happen to internet connections and I can not for the life of me figure out why most US DSL providers insist on using that junk rather than simply running standard IP directly on the line. If PPPoE disappeared entirely tomorrow, DSL connections worldwide would be better for it.


wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1

said by wolrah:

The problem is that PPPoE problems pop up far more often than they should and are very challenging to diagnose remotely

It's likely that the pppoe session is being interrupted by line noise or the server/client is not ending the pppoe session properly
said by wolrah:

The modem itself supports "IP Passthrough" which is exactly what we want, but Earthlink seems to have disabled this feature

Does this mean that the ip passthrough option is not present in the gui

wolrah

join:2005-12-29
Medina, OH

On the PPPoE problems, anything like that would still be solved by rebooting the devices. I'm talking about problems that continue through reboots. There is also a problem with reboots though, some modems will drop out of bridge mode if they do not see a PPP discover within a certain time after rebooting, so if the modem is booted too far before the router it never works.

As for IP passthrough, yes, it's not in the GUI at all. When I looked around and found that feature, the screenshot I saw showed an identical basic layout of the config system but the actual menu entries were significantly different. As noted in the first post, the firmware version reported by the device is a full minor version plus some subversions past the one Motorola's site claims is the latest, so obviously either Moto doesn't update their web site or Earthlink is using a firmware that's not public.



wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1

said by wolrah:

On the PPPoE problems, anything like that would still be solved by rebooting the devices

I don't agree with that....if a pppoe session is not ended by the server/client with a padt the server will not end the pppoe session for up to 30 minutes and that will prevent a new pppoe session until the orphaned session is ended
said by wolrah:

some modems will drop out of bridge mode if they do not see a PPP discover within a certain time after rebooting

What modem does this

ip passthrough, default server and other variations of this all do the same thing direct all unsolicited internet traffic to a lan device

wolrah

join:2005-12-29
Medina, OH

If PPPoE really works that way where a temporary glitch can cause extended downtime, that's even more reason for me to consider it inappropriate for serious use. Again I can't understand why DSL providers love it so much.

As for what modem did that, I forget the exact model, but it was either a Moto or a 2Wire that was commonly deployed by AT&T a few years ago. I ran in to it multiple times and cursed it repeatedly.

IP passthrough is NOT the same as default server, IP passthrough allows the actual WAN IP to be assigned to my hardware. It's best compared to Proxy ARP in how it works. Default server and similar options are nothing more than wildcard NAT forwards.



wayjac
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1

said by wolrah:

IP passthrough is NOT the same as default server, IP passthrough allows the actual WAN IP to be assigned to my hardware. It's best compared to Proxy ARP in how it works. Default server and similar options are nothing more than wildcard NAT forwards

I did not post that ip passthrough, default server and other variations of this are all the same
They all provide a workaround to nat

Sounds like you need a provider that has a connection method that you approve of