Replacing actiontec router and keeping remote dvr AND app?
I recently replaced my actiontec router as the primary router with my own after running lines to the ONT. I currently have the "#7 Primary LAN-to-LAN " setup with the actiontec simply acting as a wireless bridge for the STBs. My router is supplying the IPs to the STBs. I thought this would be sufficient for me because I don't need caller ID as we rarely get calls on our land line and didn't think I needed the remote DVR. The only thing I really wanted to keep was the use of the FiOS app for using an iphone and/or ipad as a remote control (this app requires the iOS devices and the STBs to be on the same network).
However, much to my dismay, the DVR functionality within those apps appears to rely on the remote DVR functionality of the verizon website. I assumed they would communicate with the STBs directly. So is there any way to to have my cake and eat it too? None of the suggested networking setups that enable remote DVR to work keep the STBs on the same network as the PC/LAN network. Not from what I can tell anyway.
I saw on the actiontec that you can separate the ethernet switch from the coax connections in the configuation so I thought I could set my own router as DHCP for addresses .110 and up and then keep the actiontec handing out 100 through 109 (but only on the coax side as to not have two DHCP servers on one network). However, when you separate the coax from the ethernet, the actiontec is no longer bridging the coax to the ethernet so the STBs can no longer talk to the rest of my network.
Does the actiontec iteself actually "report" it's broadband IP to verizon? Is that why you have to do with double/triple router setup explained in the FAQs? Otherwise, it seems you could setup static DHCP reservations on the replacement router and then setup port forwarding directly to the STBs, no?
Any insight would be appreciated.
West Chester, PA
said by syntax53:Huh? The Actiontec doesn't support wireless bridge and the STBs don't support wireless.
I currently have the "#7 Primary LAN-to-LAN " setup with the actiontec simply acting as a wireless bridge for the STBs.
said by syntax53:You might take a look at »Verizon Online FiOS FAQ »Three router solution - Take 2
The only thing I really wanted to keep was the use of the FiOS app for using an iphone and/or ipad as a remote control (this app requires the iOS devices and the STBs to be on the same network).
I believe that keeps the STBs on the same subnet.
said by syntax53:Yes and yes.
Does the actiontec itself actually "report" it's broadband IP to verizon? Is that why you have to do with double/triple router setup explained in the FAQs?
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
said by More Fiber:Sorry, yea added an extra word in there. It's just a bridge, not a wireless bridge.
Huh? The Actiontec doesn't support wireless bridge and the STBs don't support wireless.
I did see that one but when I had read "you need the actiontec to supply DHCP to the STBs" I had stopped reading because I assumed it wasn't what I was looking for at that point. But now I see it wants you to disable the DHCP after it does so. When pondering that scenario I would think those routes and addresses would expire out once the DHCP leases expire though? I guess not but that's what I would think. I'll have to experiment with that.
I did take a screen shot of how the routes were setup to my boxes before I changed everything. Though I only had STB names and IPs, no MACs so I can't be sure which boxes are which. I don't want to have to hook up the actiontec to the ONT again and then deal with having to switch IPs back again to my own router. If I can avoid it anyway.
So I have everything working configured like the "take 2" setup. What I did was I factory reset the actiontec and then let my STBs get IPs from it. I configured my primary router to forward everything to the actiontec and wanted to make sure everything worked before I moved on to putting everything on the same network. It was a challenge at first--
When I first let my STBs get the new IPs from the actiontec, the actiontec kept adding routes for the OLD IP addresses that they used to have when they were on my own network. I had my own network configured on the 10.0.0.x network. When the actiontec setup the port forwarding rules as the STBs popped in, it kept setting up caller ID rules (port 8082) utilizing the old 10.0.0.x IP addresses that the STBs had. Even though it was adding new DVR rules (port 63145) for the new IPs. I have absolutely no idea where it was getting these IPs from. I don't know if the ONT or the STBs themselves store something about caller ID separate and communicate that with the router somehow, but it makes no sense to me what-so-ever.
I even did a live chat with verizon to have them re-initialize my boxes and the old 10.0.0.x IPs still came back. In the end I just let it sit there overnight and by the next day the old 10 network IPs were gone and everything was happy in the world. The actiontec did still add one port forward for an IP that doesn't exist. I have 2 DVRs and 1 standard box using IPs 100 through 102. Yet it keeps adding a DVR port forward for a mysterious 192.168.1.104 IP. The IP gets no response so I'm not sure where that comes from.
Anyway... onto the reason for my post--
So this morning once I saw the router had settled out I verified that caller ID was working and remote DVR was working and they were. So I then went through the motions of changing the IP on the actiontec LAN from 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.4, turning off DHCP on the actiontec, reconfiguring my own network from 10.0.0.x to 192.168.1.x, and then hooking up the LAN of the actiontec to my own network. However, I noticed something--
Once the LAN side of the actiontec was connected to my network, I could no longer administer the router through my secondary router (through the actiontec's wan port) (yes, I had remote administration turned on). I assume this is because of a routing issue. Packets from my client (say 192.168.1.50) go to my secondary router (192.168.1.3) to the WAN of the actiontec (random verizon IP), but the packets coming back will try to route through the LAN ports instead of the WAN port as it sees a direct connection there through 192.168.1.4 (LAN IP of the actointec).
I tried adding some fancy routes in a couple different places on the actiontec, but all they did was break my communication with the device completely until I unplugged the WAN port and then went in and undid them. I found another post kind of referring to the same situation here: »Re: FIOS TV Central website access with Non AT Router? ... but they aren't the same thing and there was no resolution posted there. I did try changing the default route from the broadband ethernet port to the inside lan ethernet but it didn't make any difference.
Now ultimately I'm not sure if this matters. If I left it that way then verizon wouldn't be able to communicate with my router as the router wouldn't have been able to respond on the 4567 port. Unless of course I forwarded it to the LAN side of the actiontec instead of the WAN. However, I assume that port 4567 only functions properly when traversing the WAN port.
What I did in the end was remove the LAN IP from the actiontec completely. As soon as I did that I was able to manage it through my secondary router again. The only downside to that is now the actiontec can't see anything on my network. The connected devices page says Ethernet: 0 device(s), Coax: 0 device(s), and Wireless: 0 device(s). I don't know if this will cause any issues in the future or not.
Again, working off assumptions, I assumed it was more important for the verizon servers to be able to contact my router through 4567 than it was for the router to see everything on my internal network. Now I could be wrong there as maybe shit will stop working now that the actiontec can't really see the STBs. Maybe I should have left the LAN IP on there, that way the actiontec would still see the STBs and in theory it could still communicate to the verizon servers iteself (but the verizon servers wouldn't be able to initiate a communication to it themselves). Only time will tell.
The one issue I've found is if I do a self diagnostic test through the in-home agent on the STBs, the gateway test fails. So I'm not sure what they are doing on that test that made it pass with an actiontec but fail with my router. Again, I guess time will tell but as of now I have remote DVR working as well as the remote APP.
If things do stop working I think what I would do is go back to the standard Primary LAN-to-LAN setup but leave the wireless turned on. Then if I really want to use the remote APP I'll just connect my phone/iPad to the wireless of the actiontec temporarily. Seems like a pretty easy solution to all of this madness
Can anyone make any sense of this?
Just to give an update-- so far my remote DVR has continued to work no problem. However, I've been having a lot of trouble with the virtual remote control app on the iPhone/iPad. It frequently can't find the STBs, or only finds one of them, or I'll get 1 of two errors displayed on the TV while the app is searching: "Error connecting to device", or "please try again after registering" (even though it has already been registered). I've tried unregistering everything and re-registering and sometimes I can't complete the registration because it can't find any STBs, and then other times it will complete but then not work 5 minutes later.
So last night I tried adding a local IP back onto the actiontec switch (lan side). As expected I can no longer remote administer the actiontec via my secondary router (due to routing issues, I assume), but the actiontec does see the other devices on my network. Oddly enough though, it still doesn't see any of the STBs. It says there are 0 devices on the coax network and on the network object list it's not even showing them as clients on the network or anything. I've rebooted the router and both of my STBs.
As of now my remote DVR is still functioning, but I'm still having the issues with the virtual remote app
Long Beach, CA
Are the iPhone/oPad using this same WiFi subnet? If so, then it seems to me it is something else.
yes, everything is on one subnet.
Long Beach, CA
I've seen posts on this on other forums, and sometimes removing the iPad app solved it for others. I use an Android device and don't have this issue, so I can't help much (sorry).
your moderator at work|