dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1885
share rss forum feed


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

Crazy problem

We just had a new install at our office of U-verse DSL. Before we had the vanilla ATT DSl with static IPs.

I would like to set the network up as before. Use a static IP on our router and use our router as the DHCP server. We have another device - a surveillance system that requries a static IP. The way I had it set up was from the modem that attached to a switch to provide a static IP to the surveillance system and then a connection to the switch for the router.

I was told after much hassle today, that u-verse cannot be connected that way. they can pass the static IPs through the modem, but they cannot turn off their DHCP so we are having conflicts are our network. I know I have done this before at two other installations with U-verse but that was with a different modem. The modem ATT u-verse supplied us was a NVG510.

Can anyone provide some assistance with this? I conntacted Tier 2 support and they said that DHCP server on the modem could not be turned off.

Thanks in advance.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate



sgtboost

@sbcglobal.net

Do a search. This router is such a horrible POS.



Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
reply to coxta

You certainly can accomplish what your trying to do. The only limitation your going to run into as Uverse instead of DSL is that ATT can't pass those public IPs directly to your one router (unless you can configure your router into having multiple virtual mac addresses to pass each public IP to) , but you can run your own DHCP servers behind the NVG510 without network conflicts if the subnetwork is configured properly.

»forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-H···5#M30533
That post explains how to set up the public pool.



Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

From what im gathering is that the OP had a switch between the modem and his two devices which are the router and camera system. Everything that I have read says that the OP will need to connect each device to a non switching hub or directly to the modem as suggested in the link you provided.

Another suggestion is for the OP to setup the switch as a non switching hub and then setup the camera system to utilize a public IP address. That defeats the purpose of having the switch. If the switch isn't capable of this then the OP might have to acquire a non switching hub or second router and configure the router to work with the camera system.

This seems to be a common issue here with att modems working as switches that can't be used as a bridge or non switching hub. Switches are faster than most routers in high traffic situations. I am assigning different routers connected to my modem with public IP addresses as suggested in your link, but I think the OP wants to let the switch assign the public IP addresses as I think he was doing before.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football.



coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

1 recommendation

reply to coxta

Yes, I basically want to set the modem in bridge mode and from all I've read, it can't be done. Perhaps switching to cascade mode will do the trick but I'm not sure about including the surveillence system.

After the third trip the installer left me with 5 pcs of of 15 devices thst have the static IPs assigned by some dhcp type mecahnism and that includes IPV 4 and 6 and Private IPs. So I have 3 IP addresses on each machine. The installer said that was all he could do and as as far as he was concerned he delivered the product as sold. He told me it would not support what I want it to do.

Not to digress but U-verse is a bastard son of ATT and should be put out of its misery. I ve been setting up networks from home offices to large scale offices since Windows 3.1 and U-verse is without a doubt the very worst product and support in the indusrty I have ever encountered. At this point in time I can't find the words to express my disatisfaction.

Excuse the spelling errors. This post comes from a smart phone which limits my ability to create a more perfect posting.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate



DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to coxta

Selling a modem that can not act as a real bridge is some type of inside joke apparently at ATT.



Mangix

join:2012-02-16
united state
reply to coxta

»Rooting the NVG510 for true bridge mode



mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12
reply to Forosnai

said by Forosnai:

as Uverse instead of DSL is that ATT can't pass those public IPs directly to your one router (unless you can configure your router into having multiple virtual mac addresses to pass each public IP to)

Not true. The NVG510 works BEAUTIFULLY with the /29 static IP block and your own REAL router, no funky virtual MAC mess needed. Just set up "cascaded router" and it'll hand the entire /29 off to your router to do whatever with; assign them to internal dummy/loopback interfaces, hand out downstream, whatever, the NVG doesn't care.

/M


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12

2 edits
reply to coxta

said by coxta:

Perhaps switching to cascade mode will do the trick but I'm not sure about including the surveillence system.

Depending on what your router is, you could have multiple options for configuring this.

If it's a generic residential/soho wireless router thing, you can't use the "cascaded router" option. However if it's a real router that lets you set custom routes and NAT rules then "cascaded router" would be the ideal way to go.

Assuming it's just a generic wireless router, the "Public Subnet" option is probably your best bet. Just
1) turn on "Public Subnet"
2) Give it an address from within your subnet (the "Public IPv4 Address" field) and let it know what your netmask is
3) Set both "DHCPv4 Start Address" and "DHCPv4 End Address" to be another IP from your subnet (make them both the same)
4) Set up your surveillance system and router with more addresses from your subnet, setting their gateway to the IPyou gave the NVG in step #2

Example: if AT&T gave you 1.2.3.0/29, then you have 1.2.3.1-1.2.3.6 to play with:
1) turn on "Public Subnet"
2) Give the NVG the IP 1.2.3.1 and netmask 255.255.255.248
3) Set both "DHCPv4 Start Address" and "DHCPv4 End Address" to 1.2.3.2
4) Assign 1.2.3.3 to your security system and 1.2.3.4 to your router, setting the default gateway on both to 1.2.3.1
5) Done! You can assign 1.2.3.5 and 1.2.3.6 to any additional routers/security systems/whatever you add later.

I can post instructions for the "Cascaded Router" option if needed...

/M


Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
reply to mackey

That is really good to hear. I have never read or heard of anyone having success with the cascaded router option with a static IP block.



mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12

Working great here for about a year now

/M



coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
reply to mackey

No, it's a vanilla soho router and I know there isn't a budget for another router.



coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
reply to Mangix

Thanks for this. I will keep it on file but I don't want to root it.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12
reply to coxta

said by coxta:

No, it's a vanilla soho router and I know there isn't a budget for another router.

I assumed as much, which is why I posted instructions for the "Public Subnet" option instead

/M


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
reply to coxta

Update: a call was placed to reinstate our DSL. It will take 10 days or so, but there is a catch. Since ATT wants to convert everyone to U-verse, it may not be possible for us to get our DSL connection back in place. I have to discuss with someone from a special ATT office and make a convincing case why our office needs to return to basic DSL.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate



mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12

If you really have the static IP block (the /29, aka "5 usable") then I don't see why you don't just set up the NVG510 exactly like you had your old dsl router/modem set up. It's definitely capable of it, I even posted the instructions...

/M



coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

said by mackey:

If you really have the static IP block (the /29, aka "5 usable") then I don't see why you don't just set up the NVG510 exactly like you had your old dsl router/modem set up. It's definitely capable of it, I even posted the instructions...

/M

Well that's what I have. 5 usable after the 3 are used for the network, gateway, and housekeeping for the router. I guess I misunderstood your post. If what you say is true for this modem, then it should work. It isn't a particularly complex network and I we dont need a high end router with routing capability.

I have set up a couple of modems for U-verse a few years ago, but I guess after a few negative comments here and getting a not possible reponse from the technician and the tier two support, I just overlooked your solution. I will give it a try and see how it works.

I appreciate your assistance, but it really should be ATT -U-verse giving me this infor and not charging me $75.

ATt U-verse continues to be a non-professional offering.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate


Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5

said by coxta:

I appreciate your assistance, but it really should be ATT -U-verse giving me this infor and not charging me $75.

ATt U-verse continues to be a non-professional offering.

I don't know of many professional offerings that come in and setup your LAN for you for free.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.

The Judd Family site!


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

said by Dennis:

said by coxta:

I appreciate your assistance, but it really should be ATT -U-verse giving me this infor and not charging me $75.

ATt U-verse continues to be a non-professional offering.

I don't know of many professional offerings that come in and setup your LAN for you for free.

I didn't ask them to set up my LAN. I asked them to set up the modem so I could have a bank of static IP's.

They put a static IP in the modem and set up dhcp and said their job was done. I asked them to pass the IP addresses through the modem and turn off DHCP. They said it was impossible with this modem. This is per the technician who set it up, his boss, and three people at tier two support. I was sent on to 360 support which is a pay service. I don't think I should have to pay extra for the product I purchased.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate


Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5

said by coxta:

They put a static IP in the modem and set up dhcp and said their job was done. I asked them to pass the IP addresses through the modem and turn off DHCP. They said it was impossible with this modem.

Right yeah it is impossible. That's because the authentication certificate in embedded into the hardware since Uverse doesn't use PPPoE. Although I agree the installing tech should have at least set up the router as mackey See Profile above outlined. Maybe that discussion got derailed with the whole DHCP thing?

You can get your own router (Belkin N300 with dd-wrt is nice) run it off one of the static ip's and then use it for your LAN's DHCP easily.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.

The Judd Family site!


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

said by Dennis:

said by coxta:

They put a static IP in the modem and set up dhcp and said their job was done. I asked them to pass the IP addresses through the modem and turn off DHCP. They said it was impossible with this modem.

Right yeah it is impossible. That's because the authentication certificate in embedded into the hardware since Uverse doesn't use PPPoE. Although I agree the installing tech should have at least set up the router as mackey See Profile above outlined. Maybe that discussion got derailed with the whole DHCP thing?

You can get your own router (Belkin N300 with dd-wrt is nice) run it off one of the static ip's and then use it for your LAN's DHCP easily.

It's not quite that easy. You can't shut off the DHCP on the modem.

I've gone through the things on this thread and followed threads on the ATT forum now and this is a continuing problem. I asked the installer for the DNS and he said I didn't need it. He didn't know the DNS and maybe didn't know what DNS was.

»forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-H···/2890841
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate


Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5

said by coxta:

It's not quite that easy. You can't shut off the DHCP on the modem.

DHCP isn't magic. All you have to do is create a new subnet and then your router becomes the DHCP server for that subnet while the AT&T Uverse RG is only DHCP for it's subnet which would connect to the new router's WAN port.

The DNS is:
68.94.156.1
68.94.157.1

Which are anycast IP's valid anywhere. Or you can use any DNS you want it doesn't really matter honestly for internet traffic.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.

The Judd Family site!


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

2 edits

Of course it isn't magic. Any DNS should do although the ISP's DNS may be faster depeneding on how that web page is routed. And as has been discussed, I can limit the DHCP to a different subnet from my LAN router.

Keep in mind that the installer should be able to set his modem up the way I request. I wasn't even able to get manual with the modem. I have one now and I have some other information, but we shall see how things go.

Well, I have some of the network up and working. I guess the last thing he did was try to use citrex to log on to a remote gateway.

I did forget to mention that I walked on in him as he was pulling the cables out of our router and switch. I guess he thought it was ATT's modem and other property. That's why only a portion of the network is up and running. He didn't plug them all back in as they should have been.

Well, the good news is that all seems to be working after a few hours of work. It's not particularlly fast, but I didn't run any speed tests. I will wait and see how stable it is over time. Thank you everyone (except for ATT unless some of you are ATT employees) for the assistance.

--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate


Paralel

join:2011-03-24
Michigan, US
kudos:4

In general, ATT's DNS is crap. I would avoid it if possible.



Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
kudos:5

said by Paralel:

In general, ATT's DNS is crap. I would avoid it if possible.

Actually no it's not. Feel free to use whatever you really want for internet traffic but your statement is a generalization of your personal opinion.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.

The Judd Family site!


Mangix

join:2012-02-16
united state
reply to Paralel

Unlike a lot of DNS servers out there, 68.94.156/7.1 both support DNSSEC. At least forward thinking...

So I disagree.