dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2299
share rss forum feed

chuim

join:2013-10-27
Decatur, GA

Issues with router-behind-router

Hello.

I recently subscribed to U-Verse for Internet and Cable and was utterly disappointed when I learned my RG, a Pace 3801HGV had 802.11g wireless and 100Mbps Ethernet. It's hard to understand why I'm paying a monthly lease on a "advanced tech" device that is clearly outdated. I run a file server at home so these speeds are a no-no.

So I bought myself a new wireless router (D-Link DIR860L) and was planning to turn the RG into a simple bridge and let the dual-core-powered device do the heavy lifting. Well, as you might already imagine I was again surprised to learn that this RG doesn't really support bridge mode.

I followed guides I found on the web to get it as close as possible to a bridge. This is what I did so far:
* Turned off RG wireless
* Connected the RG from one of its LAN ports to the router WAN port
* Set my router to be in DMZplus
* Enabled the router-behind-router setting
* Router is a DHCP client for the WAN
* Router is a DHCP server for my LAN with a different sub-net (RG has 192.168.1.x, router has 192.168.2.x)
* All devices including the connections to the DVRs (wired and the Motorola wireless AP) are behind the router

That worked for the Internet access but not really for the two DVRs I have, one wired one wireless. With both of them I was able to watch a channel for 10 to 30 seconds, then the image would freeze for a few more and a blue screen would come stating that the cable signal was lost. By just switching the channel the process would repeat.

If I move the DVR connections back to the RG ports they work properly. That's not really a problem for the wireless AP, but for the wired one, which is in another room, would mean I wouldn't be able to use my router for my home network (can't connect both as both are DHCP servers).

Oh, and with these IP ranges I can't access the RG web UI. I have to plug my computer directly to it's LAN ports to be able to.

I tried contacting customer services today and I was basically told "no we won't change your RG and no there's no actual bridge mode for it". And I was offered the paid tech service number for me to call... I wasn't really happy about that.

Any help would be much appreciated. Also if I should post more information, please let me know.

And sorry for the long message... :|


Darknessfall
Premium
join:2012-08-17
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Frontier Communi..
·AT&T U-Verse
said by chuim:

Hello.

I recently subscribed to U-Verse for Internet and Cable and was utterly disappointed when I learned my RG, a Pace 3801HGV had 802.11g wireless and 100Mbps Ethernet. It's hard to understand why I'm paying a monthly lease on a "advanced tech" device that is clearly outdated. I run a file server at home so these speeds are a no-no.

So I bought myself a new wireless router (D-Link DIR860L) and was planning to turn the RG into a simple bridge and let the dual-core-powered device do the heavy lifting. Well, as you might already imagine I was again surprised to learn that this RG doesn't really support bridge mode.

I followed guides I found on the web to get it as close as possible to a bridge. This is what I did so far:
* Turned off RG wireless
* Connected the RG from one of its LAN ports to the router WAN port
* Set my router to be in DMZplus
* Enabled the router-behind-router setting
* Router is a DHCP client for the WAN
* Router is a DHCP server for my LAN with a different sub-net (RG has 192.168.1.x, router has 192.168.2.x)
* All devices including the connections to the DVRs (wired and the Motorola wireless AP) are behind the router

That worked for the Internet access but not really for the two DVRs I have, one wired one wireless. With both of them I was able to watch a channel for 10 to 30 seconds, then the image would freeze for a few more and a blue screen would come stating that the cable signal was lost. By just switching the channel the process would repeat.

If I move the DVR connections back to the RG ports they work properly. That's not really a problem for the wireless AP, but for the wired one, which is in another room, would mean I wouldn't be able to use my router for my home network (can't connect both as both are DHCP servers).

Oh, and with these IP ranges I can't access the RG web UI. I have to plug my computer directly to it's LAN ports to be able to.

I tried contacting customer services today and I was basically told "no we won't change your RG and no there's no actual bridge mode for it". And I was offered the paid tech service number for me to call... I wasn't really happy about that.

Any help would be much appreciated. Also if I should post more information, please let me know.

And sorry for the long message... :|

All devices related to TV service should remain ONLY connected to the gateway. Only internet devices in your home should be using the d-link.


brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3
reply to chuim
said by chuim:

with these IP ranges I can't access the RG web UI. I have to plug my computer directly to it's LAN ports

Are you sure? Can you ping it by IP address? I have similar, DMZ-ed router with unique 2nd subnet, but am still able to access RG web pages thru its IP address.

If also using RG's IP address as a DNS server, then the gateway.2wire.net address sometimes did resolve to same, but it's flaky. Today not working, my RG's IP is 192.168.1.254:

% nslookup gateway.2wire.net 192.168.1.254
Server: 192.168.1.254
Address: 192.168.1.254#53

** server can't find gateway.2wire.net: REFUSED

Matt7

join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Insight Communic..
reply to chuim
The reason the issues happens with the DVR's is because AT&T UVerse IPTV uses Multicast IGMP packets for the video streams... consumer based routers can't handle that well and flood all the ports with the Multicast packets which is why you get the drops..

The PACE that you call crappy is able to properly handle those Multicast packets and thus works avoiding all the ports being flooded with the Multicast IGMP traffic.

I am guessing your DIR860L router can't properly filter out the multicast from ports not being used by the DVRs..

Which is why it works with them plugged into the AT&T RG but not into your router.

Your best bet as others have said is to leave the DVR TV boxes plugged into the RG but use your router for your internet machines.


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by Matt7:

consumer based routers can't handle that well and flood all the ports with the Multicast packets which is why you get the drops.. into the RG but use your router for your internet machines.

That is not entirely accurate. The problem is the RG can't actually route multicast behind another router. The reason it works for the first 10-30 seconds is because the set top boxes use TCP to initially join a video stream which will work. After 10-30 seconds they join the multicast group and switchover. When they are behind another router, the IGMP joins never reach the RG, so the video stream never gets forwarded. Even if the 2nd router was configured to support multicast routing with IGMP, it wouldn't matter because the RG will ignore it anyway.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/

chuim

join:2013-10-27
Decatur, GA
reply to chuim
Thanks a lot for the replies and thorough explanations.

Given what was said I found a way to get both IPTV systems connected directly to the RG ports. I'll have to move the RG into the patch panel closet and make one of my wires dedicated to its subnet.

It's just annoying to have a home network setup and have to limit it so to make this setup work; just not what I was expecting.

Anyway, thanks again!


rolande
Certifiable
Premium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Dallas, TX
kudos:6
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·ViaTalk
said by chuim:

It's just annoying to have a home network setup and have to limit it so to make this setup work; just not what I was expecting.

Yep. You would think they would leave the option open for the advanced customers that want that flexibility but highlight it as an unsupported setup. But instead, they lock it down to the lowest common denominator and hamstring the rest of us as a result. It works, but just not as well as we'd like it to.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
»rolande.wordpress.com/


brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3
To overcome single cat6 limitation would need VLAN-capable switches (at both ends)? But you'd eat into your theoretical BW.

Is there a standard single cable like a cat6x2? If you need a lot of flexibility of where to place your main router, those locations need to be wired with two cat6? So one cat6 drives its WAN port from RG in closet, and 2nd back feeds to a switch in closet to drive rest of house.

Be nice if PoE (over one of the cat6) could also power that main router, so it may also be powered essentially from single/same central/closet UPS too. Still not feasible for today's consumer routers?

ATT won't even use PoE for supplying a powered NID/ONT, right (from an inside gateway or AP, having a battery backup)? Seems like would be an appropriate application for PoE...


ILpt4U
Premium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:9
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
If you look hard enough, I'm sure you could find 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 25, etc pair Cat 5e/Cat 6 -- Not going to be standard in any way, but I'm sure it is out there if you know where to look

It is probably cheaper/easier though to pull multiple standard 4 Pair runs for as many pairs as you need