Linksys → BEFSW11 v4 static route possible bug

I am the not so proud owner of a BEFW11S4 v4 router. Firmware version 1.50.14. Everything worked well until I wanted to create a static route to my DSL modem at 10.0.0.138 on the WAN side.

I went to the Advanced Routeing page, and inscribed
the following values:

Destination IP 10.0.0.138
Subnet Mask    255.255.255.252
Gateway        10.0.0.138
Hop count      1
Interface      Internet

When I selected "Show Routing Table", I got this mess:

Dest          Subnet          Gateway  Hops  IF IP            Mask
0.0.0.0       0.0.0.0         63.249.85.1 1 WAN
10.0.0.136    255.255.255.252 0.0.0.0     1 WAN
63.249.85.124 255.255.255.252 0.0.0.0     1 WAN
192.168.1.0   255.255.255.0   0.0.0.0     1 LAN

Two things radically wrong:
1. It says 10.0.0.136 instead of 10.0.0.138
2. It says 0.0.0.0 for the gateway on 2nd line when it should be 10.0.0.138.

I tried other values around 138 to see which ones would work. Only a few values were correct for the routeing table. Most were wrong.

Methinks this be a bug.

10.0.0.136 is not wrong. You specified a subnet ending in 252 (0xFC). That means the lowest two bits of the address are ignored. Take 138 (0x8A), apply the subnet mask, and you get 136. This is the network address.

As for the missing gateway, that does look wrong, but then I haven't tried Advanced Routing on my own unit.

OK, you're correct about the subnet mask part. I wasn't quite sure how it worked. Thanks. However, the gateway address is 0.0.0.0 no matter what I do with the other values. If I use a full Class C IP block for the netmask, I get:

Destination IP 10.0.0.138
Subnet Mask    255.255.255.0
Gateway        10.0.0.138
Hop count      1
Interface      Internet

Dest          Subnet          Gateway  Hops  IF
IP            Mask
0.0.0.0       0.0.0.0         63.249.85.1 1 WAN
10.0.0.0      255.255.255.0   0.0.0.0    1 WAN
63.249.85.124 255.255.255.0   0.0.0.0     1 WAN
192.168.1.0   255.255.255.0   0.0.0.0     1 LAN

The destination IP is correct, but the gateway is still wrong.

Incidentally, the reason for creating this static route is to be able to extract statistics from my Alcatel Speed Touch Home DSL modem at 10.0.0.138 (the default) through the BFW11S4v4 router.

First of all, you probably don't need the static route to find your modem that way... It is "found" through the default route -- the Linksys is responding to that fact by replacing the host route you set with the default route.

A "gateway" address in any route must be on the same IP network # as the interface [LAN/WAN] that it is bound. The LinkSys seems to use a gateway of 0.0.0.0 to indicate that the destination network is "directly attached"

You should be able to ping that [modem] IP from your PC -- it should also show up as your first hop in an outgoing tracert. If that alone does not allow you to compile statistics, the modem probably does not respond to queries on that [pseudo] address [I actually don't think it's the address of the modem] -- Many modems use raw Ethernet, so, to gather stats in the presence of a router, you would want to actually put your modem on your LAN so that it's connected on both sides [LAN/WAN] of the router. There are ways to do this, some are easy, some require another switch.

>First of all, you probably don't need the static route
>to find your modem that way... It is "found" through
>the default route -- the Linksys is responding to that
>fact by replacing the host route you set with the
>default route.

I beg to differ. The default route in the typical router table defines the gateway to the internet for packets NOT defined by another route, which includes the LAN at 192.168.1.xxx. If I run traceroute from my PC to the address of the DSL modem 10.0.0.138, it tries to go through the gateway IP address. That's because it thinks that all addresses other than 192.168.1.xxx go through the gateway.

Tracing route to 10.0.0.138 over a maximum of 30 hops
  1    10 ms    20 ms    10 ms  dsl3-63-249-85-gateway.cruzio.com [63.249.85.1]
  2    10 ms    10 ms    20 ms  7200hurricane.cruzio.com [63.249.95.1]
  3    20 ms    10 ms    20 ms  gige-g4-0-18.gsr12012.fmt.he.net [64.71.128.37]
(etc)

Note that traceroute does not show the LAN IP of the router 192.168.1.1 or the WAN IP of the router 63.249.86.127.

In order to create an exception to the default gateway, it is necessary to create a static route to the device which does NOT go through the default gateway. That's what I am trying to do and where the BEFW11S4 is failing to co-operate.

>You should be able to ping that [modem] IP from your
>PC -- it should also show up as your first hop in an
>outgoing tracert.

I again beg to differ. My DSL modem is a layer 2 bridge, not a router. It knows nothing about dealing with layer 3 IP addresses. It only has an IP address for management and diagnostic purposes. An IP address is not necessary for its operation. Traceroute does not show the DSL modem/bridge management IP address. For that matter, traceroute also does not show the IP address of my local router. Try it on your setup and see for thyself. If you can find a workaround, I would be interested.

The more common use of a static route is on the LAN side, where an exception needs to be made to access a remote network through a gateway that is NOT the default route.

Incidentally, the IP address of the Alactel Speed Touch Home DSL modem/bridge can be changed and need not be stuck at the default 10.0.0.138.

Thanks much.

I sure hope that you figure out how to do it because I'm in the same situation. I have BEFW11S4 ver. 4 router and a Best Data DSL800EU modem (configured as a bridge) and would also like to access the modem statistics. I tried several items and finally gave up.

Allen

Oops -- I see now that you have a DSL modem that's different from what I expected -- I thought the 10.address was the PPPoE address that some DSL modems get.

I your case then, you would want to put the modem and the WAN port of the LinkSys on your LAN -- Consider giving the modem a 192.168.1.x address and either:

Add a switch/hub cascaded from the 11S4 -- to this hub you will attach the modem, the WAN port of the LinkSys and an uplink port of LinkSys -- The modem must have a 192.168.1.x address, and looks like this:
This will allow you to see the modem on the 192.168.1.0 network, and still allow the WAN port of the LinkSys to use Ethneret [PPPoE] to communicate with the Modem -- If you add a switch, the WAN port to modem traffic will not find the switch side of the LinkSys

The next "move" I use attaches the modem and WAN port of the LinkSys to the switch side of the LinkSys
This way, steals two switch ports and the modem still uses 1 LAN IP. Thw LinkSys can still use PPPoE to find the modem and the LAN PCs can use TCPIP to configure the modem.

Both ways work, and they don't have to be permanent, but if you have the ports to spare they can remain.

In order for tweaking the routing table to have any effect in your case, the WAN port would have to allow you to bind more than one IP adddress to the interface [it does not]. With the modem on your LAN. you could actually pull it off with a Win PC by just adding another IP address [a 10.address which will also create a proper route] to the PCs Ethernet interface, but it still does not get you across the LinkSys.

said by ChrisDAT:

---

Add a switch/hub cascaded from the 11S4 -- to this hub you will attach the modem, the WAN port of the LinkSys and an uplink port of LinkSys

---

Good idea and it works. However, I did it a bit differently. My wiring pretzel now looks like.

DSL === Alcatel Speed ==== 4 port ==================\
       Touch Home Modem    ethernet                 |
                           switch ==== Linksys =====/
                                  (wan)BEFW11S4
                                       router ==== to PC1
                                         |   (lan)
                                         |======== to PC2
                                         |======== to PC3

Ugh, that's ugly. Basically, I added a 4 port switch between the DSL modem and the WAN port of the BEFW11S4. I also added a CAT5 cable between the 4 port switch and one of the LAN ports on the BEFW11S4 router.

For setup, I changed the IP address of my Windoze 2000 ethernet port from DHCP assigned to TWO static IP addresses. (10.0.0.10, and 192.168.1.10). The output of IP config looks like this:

Windows 2000 IP Configuration
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
 Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.0.0.10
 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.10
 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

I also set the DNS servers to the real IP address for my ISP's DNS servers, although I could have used the IP address of my router (192.168.1.1). The routing table now looks like this:

Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0      192.168.1.1    192.168.1.10       1
         10.0.0.0    255.255.255.0        10.0.0.10    192.168.1.10       1
        10.0.0.10  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
   10.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
        127.0.0.0        255.0.0.0        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
      192.168.1.0    255.255.255.0     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
     192.168.1.10  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
    192.168.1.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
        224.0.0.0        224.0.0.0     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
Default Gateway:       192.168.1.1

The 4th line looks a bit odd but everything else is correct. Even though the PC's ethernet port appears directly on the output of the DSL modem, all the packets from the internet will go to the Linksys router at 63.249.85.127 and not to the PC's ethernet interface. I'll do some testing to see if I've created some kind of security issue. However, at first glance, it looks good.

Note that this does not affect the router configuration in any way. Therefore PPPoE and DHCP should still work on the WAN port.

A second ethernet card would also work, allowing a DHCP assigned IP address for the other ethernet port. However a second card is not required with TWO IP addresses on one port.

Thanks much but I really do wish Linksys would fix the static route problem.

With my BEFSR41 I can connect directly to my cable modem diag page on 192.168.100.1 without making a special route from 192.168.1.x (my Lan)

It's also acting as a bridge I don't see it when I do a trace on the internet. the only way I get to see it is if I trace it directly wich bring up this:

C:\>tracert 192.168.100.1

Tracing route to 192.168.100.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 4 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.100.1

When I trace DLSreports for example:

C:\>tracert www.dslreports.com

Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 17 ms 11 ms 22 ms 10.132.128.1
2 9 ms 9 ms 10 ms 24.200.237.29
3 9 ms 9 ms 10 ms 24.200.237.17
4 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 10.154.0.130
5 12 ms 12 ms 10 ms 10.154.0.212
6 9 ms 10 ms 10 ms 207.96.146.129
7 16 ms 18 ms 18 ms ia-fnrt-bb02-pos9-0.vtl.net [207.253.253.198]
8 21 ms 24 ms 17 ms gw-nac.torontointernetxchange.net [198.32.245.38
]
9 44 ms 41 ms 35 ms 0.so-3-2-0.gbr2.nwr.nac.net [209.123.11.225]
10 49 ms 35 ms 36 ms 0.so-0-3-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.233]
11 33 ms 40 ms 56 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]

Trace complete.

Did you try to access the page in your browser before trying to make a route? =)

said by Cyants:

---

With my BEFSR41 I can connect directly to my cable modem diag page on 192.168.100.1 without making a special route from 192.168.1.x (my Lan)
(...)
Did you try to access the page in your browser before trying to make a route? =)

---

Note that I'm using a BEFW11S4 and not a BEFSR41.

I did try to connect to 10.0.0.138 with my BEFW11S4 with no static route, and failed. I also just tried it on my office LAN through a DLink DI-614+, and from the next office through a Sonicwall SOHO/10 router. No ping, no telnet, no http, nothing. However, there may be something related to the DSL modem IP address. I'll try changing the Alcatel Speed Touch Home to 192.168.100.1 (same as your BitSurfer cable modem) and see if that makes a difference.

I just logged into two different customer VPN's on BEFVP41 routers (similar to your BEFSR41 but with VPN termination). Same story. Can't ping, telnet, or http connect to the Siemens 5100b DSL modems at 192.168.0.1.

I'll try it later on a friends cable modem and router (DLink DI-604).

So, what are you doing differently (or what am I doing wrong?) As far as I know, one should NOT be able to see the DSL or cable modem without creating a route on the WAN side of the router.

I understand that it's easier to try to tweak the NAT, and the Firewall, and PPPoE [which are the only protocols you will find on the WAN Ethernet port], but it's really easier to change the physical layout of your LAN to do the same thing -- you want to bring the IP protocol to your modem, and still have a reliable PPPoverEthernet to modem -- the LAN ports on your LinkSys have that and more -- 10/100 autonegotiation, anyone? The modem can have an IP address like your own, you avoid all that routing "drama", and the router/NAT part of the LinkSys will never see your IP communication with the modem. I would rather not have my com with the modem subject to the "logic rules" of my security "appliance." You could call it a workaround, but I think this is the way it should have been implimented in the LinkSys in the first place.

I also wouldn't call it a bug, it's more like paranoia to "secure" the modem-to-router hardwire, which is usually Cat5 [or better] and less than 5 feet long [I'd call that pretty secure]. I think it's intentional that the LinkSys boxes also prevent your LAN PCs from being able to establish a direct [PPPoE] connection to the modem -- it's just plain strange because the ability to do that quickly is valuable as a diagnostic tool -- especially when you don't want to just shut[everything]down.

said by ChrisDAT:

---

I also wouldn't call it a bug, it's more like paranoia to "secure" the modem-to-router hardwire,(...)

---

I would call the BEFW11S4 inability to define a gateway IP adddress for a perfectly valid static route to be a bug.

I just tried changing the IP address of my Alcatel modem to 192.168.100.1 and tried ping and http through an BEFVP41 router. Nothing. No response.

There's nothing security related or devious in that it doesn't work. I believe I previously explained how a static route works and why it's necessary (to keep the traffic from going to the default gateway instead of the DSL modem). As far as I know, that's the way it's suppose to work. If I want to side track (i.e. route) traffic to a different destination, the router needs a (static) route.

I just excavated another router that does static routes. Netgear MR814v2. I'll try it tonite. Stay tuned.

Try this:

Destination IP 10.0.0.138
Subnet Mask 255.0.0.0
Gateway 10.0.0.138 -- Try playing with this.. e.g. your routers ip and 0.0.0.0
Hop count 1
Interface Internet

Which Linksys switch do you recommend for the first option:

EZXS55W? SD205? or is it important?

said by B777300:

---

Try this:
Destination IP 10.0.0.138
Gateway 10.0.0.138 -- Try playing with this.. e.g. your routers ip and 0.0.0.0

---

Well, that's what started this exercise. Please read my first two messages in this thread. The problem is that no matter what I put in the gateway field, the BEFW11S4 router sets the gateway to 0.0.0.0 which will not work. The gateway has to be the IP address of the DSL modem (10.0.0.138) for a static route to work. I'm gonna take home a few routers from stock that have a static route feature and play some more.

said by allencp:

---

Which Linksys switch do you recommend for the first option:
EZXS55W? SD205? or is it important?

---

I like the SD205 better because I can pile things on top of the box. However, it really doesn't matter whether you use a switch, dual speed hub, or a hub for the box between the modem and router. I used an ancient Edimax 8 port 10baseT hub from the junk heap and it works just fine. If the DSL or cable modem were running at 6Mbits/sec, methinks a switch would be a better choice than a hub. However at 1.5Mbits/sec DSL speeds, anything will work.

said by AE6KS:

---

I just excavated another router that does static routes. Netgear MR814v2. I'll try it tonite. Stay tuned.

---

So much for that great idea. I replaced my BEFW11S4 router with a Netgear MR814v2 router. I removed the extra ethernet switch, and reset the TCP/IP settings for my W2K ethernet card back to DHCP assigned. Basically back to stock with no static routes in either the router or the W2K box.

First, I tried ping and telnet to the DSL modem at 10.0.0.138. Nothing, which is what I expected. Tracert to 10.0.0.138 shows that traffic is going out via the default gateway, also as expected. Internet access works normally.

I then setup a static route as:

  Destination  10.0.0.138
  Netmask      255.255.255.0
  Gateway      10.0.0.138
  Metric       2

The firmware would not accept a Gateway of 0.0.0.0 or a metric less than 2, which makes sense. It's also kinda cute as the BEFW11S4 does the exact opposite and only accepts 0.0.0.0 as the Gateway. Duh...

I again tried ping, telnet, and http and again got no response. This is not good. I then tried traceroute again. Instead of going out via the default gateway, my sniffer and the front panel lights show that the packets are getting sprayed all over the LAN side and not the WAN side.

So, this box has a different problem. It doesn't allow for WAN side static routes (i.e. selection of interfaces for static routes). That's really nice for corporate LAN's with lots of isolated LAN's going through gateways that connect on the LAN side, but completely useless for routing traffic on the WAN side (such as monitoring a DSL or cable modem).

So, we're back to adding an ethernet switch and dual IP addresses on the workstation, which does work.

Curses, foiled again. Anyone got any better suggestions other than using a real router (i.e. Cisco)?

You actually figured out the "problem" -- A broadband router with NAT, and set to do PPPoE does not really have IP bound to the WAN intnerface, it only has PPPoE [encapsulating IP]. Adding any route to the WAN interface will assume that the destination can be found through the PPPoE "interface", that means on the internet.

If you set the LinkSys in router mode, instead of gateway mode, you would be able to find IP devices on the WAN port, otherwise the LinkSys will only use PPPoE. The whole idea of NAT, causes the LinkSys and modem to act not like a router, but as a switch -- the technical term is a transparent gateway, such that the PPPoE tunnel is acting like a single virtual cable [circuit] between the LinkSys WAN port and the CO where your DSL endpoint is found.

The physical "workarounds" I use are the only way I have been able to gain access to a DSL modem in the presence of a BB Router. The NAT is the "problem" -- it assumes that anything on the WAN port is internet [heck, the port is even labeled that way], so it does not allow the LAN ports access to the WAN interface without going through the NAT rules, and as you've also discovered, it resists attempts to work around it via configuration.

said by ChrisDAT:

---

A broadband router with NAT, and set to do PPPoE does not really have IP bound to the WAN intnerface, it only has PPPoE [encapsulating IP]. Adding any route to the WAN interface will assume that the destination can be found through the PPPoE "interface", that means on the internet.

---

Just one problem. I don't use PPPoE. I have a static IP address. It shouldn't make any difference even with PPPoE because the DSL connection is a bridge, not a router. At the ethernet port of the DSL modem, there is no concept of IP addresses.

quote:

---

If you set the LinkSys in router mode, instead of gateway mode, you would be able to find IP devices on the WAN port, otherwise the LinkSys will only use PPPoE.

---

My Linksys BEFW11S4 does not offer a selection of modes. The BEFSR41 does.

quote:

---

The whole idea of NAT, causes the LinkSys and modem to act not like a router, but as a switch -- the technical term is a transparent gateway, such that the PPPoE tunnel is acting like a single virtual cable [circuit] between the LinkSys WAN port and the CO where your DSL endpoint is found.

---

I beg to differ. My packet sniffer shows IP traffic on the WAN port. At my office, I have 5ea static IP's on the WAN side. With a hub on the ethernet side of the DSL modem, I have 5ea individual routers. Sniffing from the hub shows everyone elses traffic. Incidentally, I was able to make the static route method work by subsituteing a Cisco 2514 router for my BEFW11S4. However, everyone found the fan noise objectionable, so I'm back to the original derrangement.

Methinks you might be thinking about the ATM PVC (permanent virtual circuit) between the DSL modem and the Redback router at the ISP. The DSLAM (digital subscriber line access multiplexer) at the telco CO (central office) only deals with the DSL modulation and establishing the client part of the ATM PVC. The traffic is all ATM. From the DSLAM, there is a different PVC to the ISP's ATM router, that establishes the rest of the connection. The ISP's Redback ATM router extracts the encapulated ethernet packets. I've never heard this refered to as a "tunnel". The whole encapsulation process is defined in RFC-2684 (replaces RFC-1483).

Effectively, the two PVC's form a bridge, not a router. There is no knowledge of IP addresses between the DSL modem and the ISP's Redback router. Essentially, it's a big extension cord directly to the ISP.

quote:

---

The physical "workarounds" I use are the only way I have been able to gain access to a DSL modem in the presence of a BB Router. The NAT is the "problem" -- it assumes that anything on the WAN port is internet [heck, the port is even labeled that way], so it does not allow the LAN ports access to the WAN interface without going through the NAT rules, and as you've also discovered, it resists attempts to work around it via configuration.

---

The problem has nothing to do with NAT, although it does add to the challenge. The problem is that the static route feature on most of the routers I've played with are either broken (BEFW11S4) or only work on the LAN side (MR814).

ChrisDAT - A little advice. I now have a EZXS55W linksys switch and trying to get it to work. I have tried just about every combination possible and the only one even close to working is:

Modem to switch uplink port, switch port 2 to router port (2,3,4), switch port (2,3,4) to Linksys Router input.

I can see all devices connected to the router, even the modem (192.168.1.10), however, it will not establish a connection with the modem.

The LAN on the modem will not come on unless connected to the uplink port.

Any ideas?

TIA
Allen

you need to add an ip route if you are not on a class A network check your subnet

Check the number of ip address's you have alloted change to 254

allencp: Both methods of "looping" the cabling to put the WAN port [and its Ethernet interface on the LAN] assume that you're running PPPoE.

That said, The modem [DSL or BB Cable] presents a hub [MDI-X] interface - so to connect a modem to a hub/switch, you need to either use a crossover cable or the uplink port of your switch -- caution: some uplink ports on switches use modified logic that will not forward broadcasts via any port except the uplink port when it's active, so make sure you know what it's doing. The WAN port has an MDI interface, so it can conect to any switch port with a straight cable, When you connect the switch part of the LinkSys to the "second" switch, that requires either a crossover cable or an uplink port on the LinkSys, since you have already used the uplink on the second switch.

If you have BB Cable, or use DHCP [with DSL] on the WAN interface, it will be difficult, but not impossible to use the same cable hookups. The first problem occurs if you're running DHCP on your LAN -- essentially, you can't because the WAN port of the LinkSys will almost certainly find your [its own] DHCP server before it finds your ISP's -- the same goes for the clients [you need to use static IPs], who will be able to find your ISPs DHCP since they can find the modem on the LAN.

You didn't say exactly how your modem connects and interfaces with your LinkSys, but it should have a LAN IP -- some modems have a firewall and DHCP built-in and active and supply a [private] LAN address -- That config is much more difficult to make work this way because there are too many "walls" in the way.

One more thing to watch for -- If you "cloned" the MAC address of one of your LAN PCs to the LinkSys WAN port [using DHCP], you will have duplicate MAC addresses on your LAN and this will not work when both interfaces are active [online] at the same time.

ChrisDAT and all the others.

Thanks for the tips; I'll try a few later tonight.

Here's a few more details that may help:

I have DSL service and use a Best Data DSL800EU modem. The modem is set to bridge mode (RFC1483) and uses PPPoE.

The LAN light on the modem will only come on when connected to the UPLINK port on the switch. I am not using the adjacent port because it is connected to the uplink port (per manual).

LAN IP.....I'll check tonight, but I'm reasonably sure it is the default (192.168.1.1). However, I changed the default to 192.168.1.10 and it no impact on the internet connection.

I can access the wireless printer, wireless ethernet bridge, and the web interface for the modem....but no go on the Internet.

The connection that I tried is:

Modem----(uplink port)EZXS55W ----(internet port)BEFW11S4
|
-----------------BEFW11S4 (port 2)

I have a desktop connected to port 1 and 2 wireless devices, non of which use 192.168.1.10

I am not doing any MAC address cloning.

Now for the good part, I'm a network rookie and can use all the help that I can get!

If you can't get internet, something else may be wrong -- maybe in the EZX?

Try this:

Simply put, you are putting the EZX between the modem and the LinkSys WAN/Internet port -- You will not be able to access the Modem from the LAN yet, but if The LinkSys cannot get get a PPPoE connection and internet connectivity this way, there's something wrong with the switch or the cabling.

If that does work, add a crossover cable between the EZX and the LinkSys [My BEFW11S4 has neither an uplink port nor auto-sensing ports] -- check for link status on both ends and everything should still work the same, except that the modem's [unique] IP should be available to your LAN. Moreover, if you still have PPPoE [conection] client software on your PCs, they should also be able to establish a PPPoE session with the modem [for testing purposes].

What you end up with looks like this:

Here's what works...and one remaining problem.

Modem to uplink port on EZXS; crossover cable from EZXS to Internet port on BEFW11S4.Works like a champ...no problem

Added cable from EZX to BEFW...still works fine. Internet works, can access modem (192.168.1.10)

Power cycle the BEFW and the internet connection dies. I have to disconnect the cable from the second port on the EZX to BEFW, power cycle the router and it comes back to life. In other words, I can't access if the 2nd cable is connected during a power cycle.

And ideas?