how-to block ads
|
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| Questions about reconnecting to ELN DSL service
My 6 year old DSL service from Earthlink was unexpectedly disconnected on the morning of April 24, 2006. A promised restoration of the service on May 4th, 2006 failed, due to a "rejection" of the service request by my telco, the new SBC-ATT monopoly. (Where is John Sirica buried, and should we try for a resurrection, or an autopsy?) A new reconnection date of May 10th has been promised.
In the light of the last two weeks' experience with Earthlink customer service I hope to avoid further such contacts, and am seeing information about reconnecting, if the service is ever reestablished.
The computer: Dell Optiplex 260 512 memory 1800mhz pentium.
OS: Dual boot; Win 98SE on C, Win XP Pro SP1 on D.
DSL Modem: Westell Wirespeed, no Model #, four lights: Power, Ready, Link, Activity. Ready is DSL, Link is Ethernet from the NIC.
NO router.
Connection: WinPoET (iVasion) on Win 98 side.
Windows Network Connections "WAN miniport (PPPOE)" on XP side. Both were working well before the sudden disconnection of my service by Earthlink. The XP connection was "forcibly" removed by an ELN CSR who overrode my protests against the action, before I had established that Earthlink was responsible for the loss of connection. I have reestablished it with correct settings, as far as I can determine.
When the DSL connection was interrupted, the "Ready" light changed from steady green to flashing green, and stayed in that condition until shortly after 12 Noon on May 5th. Since that date the DSL "Ready" light has again been a steady green. For the last 6 years, that has meant that the DSL line was ready for me to connect.
Since I cannot connect, despite the modem lights indicating a live DSL line ready to accept a connecion, I am guessing that some additional steps must be taken by Earthlink to restore my service, and that that is what is scheduled for May 10.
QUESTION: Can anyone tell me whether my guess is correct or not, and what those steps would be?
QUESTION: Is there any reason to be concerned that once Earthlink has taken those steps I might not be able to connect withoug making some modifications to the Nework Connections setup on my machine?
Finally, what diagnostic information about my existing setup would be useful to folks here who might be willing to help me out with this stuff? (I have posted a bunch of that stuff at CAstle Cops, if you want to check it out:
»castlecops.com/t154651-DSL_Conne···rum.html
(Note that when I posted that information I thought I had a live DSL connection, based on the modem lights, which I now doubt.) | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| On April 24, 2006, my DSL service was unilaterally disconnected by Earthlink, apparently as a result of a decision to reprovision my service, changing it from UUnet to COVAD. It is now May 12, and I still do not have DSL service.
Christopher was cooperative and supportive, but could do nothing to correct the problem, and transferred me to another representative, who had to transfer me to still another representative, who actually had the power to get information about the status of my DSL line.
That representative advised me that the Westell Wirespeed modem I have used since February 23, 2000, to support my DSL service was not working with the the new COVAD provisioning I will be forced to accept a new modem, with a new "service agreement" of one year.
After the inconvenience of not having DSL service, and my inability to get Earthlink Customer Service representatives to address that problem, I am not at all happy to be forced into a one year extension of my service contract. However, when I protested that extension to the business office they were unwilling to listen or respond to my point of view by eliminating that extension.
At this point, I would definitely NOT recommend Earthlink to others, despite having done so repeatedly and enthusiastically for the last six years.
12:08 PM 5/19/06
Despite the commitment I received from Earthlink on May 12, 2006, that I would receive a new modem by May 15, that modem had not been shipped on May 16th when I called to check the status of the unreceived shipment. The modem had to be reordered, and arrived on May 18th.
I was able to establish a DSL connection of sorts using the new modem.
Well, kind of.
The new DSL line is quite unstable. Though the connection is only occasionally lost completely, the DSL line frequently loses its signal. I am unable to access www pages for more than a few minutes after establishing each connection. To browse, I have to disconnect, and then reconnect.
Connections are poor from the gitgo, as illustrated by pings to the ELN DNS servers.
~>ping 207.69.188.185
Pinging 207.69.188.185 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=399ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 207.69.188.185:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 399ms, Average = 129ms
~>ping 207.69.188.185
Pinging 207.69.188.185 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=435ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 207.69.188.185:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 435ms, Average = 139ms
~>ping 207.69.188.185
Pinging 207.69.188.185 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=57
Reply from 207.69.188.185: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 207.69.188.185:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 41ms, Maximum = 90ms, Average = 53ms | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| The new modem is a ZyXEL Prestige 645M-UHP. Entering 172.16.0.254 in the address bar to access modem setup, as instructed by Earthlink, first produces an hourglass, then the message "The connection has timed out The server at 172.16.0.254 is taking too long to respond." etc.
Suggestions about the reasons for either the short term of my connection's link to the internet, the its apparent instability, and my inability to access the modem setup screen will be appreciated greatly.
Connections speeds, available when there is a connection, are reported as:
dslreports.com speed test result on 2006-05-19 20:37:08 EST:
702 / 101
Your download speed : 702 kbps or 87.8 KB/sec.
That is 62.9% worse than an average user on covad.net
Your upload speed : 101 kbps or 12.7 KB/sec.
That is 74.4% worse than an average user on covad.net Covad, very courteously, has noted the speed as much lower than the nominal speed of the line as provisioned, and that they were forced to use "stability mode" in provisioning it due to line problems. The cannot, however, do anything about those line problems until Earthlink consents to give them a work order. If anyone has advice for me about how to get Earthlink to do that, I will be EXTREMELY appreciative. | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS | the 2wire speed test = DL @ 750Kbps
Toast.net speed test = DL @ 542Kbps
On the specific test at Toast the average result = 2021Kbps.
I have a problem, until I can make it Earthlink's problem - which I hope to do in short order. | |
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
1 edit | reply to pivonka571
said by pivonka571  :The new modem is a ZyXEL Prestige 645M-UHP. Remove/uninstall these items from their respective OS:
• Connection: WinPoET (iVasion) on Win 98 side.
• Connection: "WAN miniport (PPPOE)" on XP side
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How to Reset TCP/IP in Windows XP
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »Uninstall and reinstall DUN and the TCP/IP protocol in Windows 98
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »What is a UHP modem?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How do I setup the UHP modem?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How can I tweak my connection for better speed and performance?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »Where are the TCP/Web100 Network Diagnostic Tool Locations?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »What are some common household items that may cause interference with your DSL?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How do I isolate my DSL signal?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »Where can I find Zyxel P645 UHP LED and Port Information?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How to Get to the Logs, the Diagnostics Page, and the DSL Statistics Page - UHP
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »What is Safe Mode?
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How do I test at my NID? What does it look like?
Regards,
Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| reply to pivonka571
Thanks (?) Doc. Wow! That will keep me busy a lot longer than I have to dedicate to the problem soon, as I have a long road trip scheduled to begin Tuesday, and quite a bit of prep time before then.
I will make an HTML copy of your posting, follow up on your suggestions when I return, and try to find this thread and post the results when I have them.
I gather that using WINS resolution of DHCP for the UHP modem may require me to establish local area network support with TCPIP for my NIC. I have not done that before, and until I do, I guess WINS resolution will be unavailable for this modem.
I have always used direct connection to the internet through PPPOE, rather than had any router or other facility requiring a LAN facility here, especially a TCP/IP enabled LAN. Don't need one, don't want one. Is it true that the UHP modem will require me to have one?
Are these modems and this LAN enabled connection procedure standard practice these days? No way to avoid them? Do they void the PPPOE connection process? I am confused by your advice to
Remove/uninstall these items from their respective OS:
# Connection: WinPoET (iVasion) on Win 98 side.
# Connection: "WAN miniport (PPPOE)" on XP side
Again, thanks for your help, and for all the links. And please accept my apologies in advance for what will be a long delay in further work on this connection problem. | |
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
| Hardware PPPoE is light years ahead in stability compared to Software PPPoE on your PC, IMHO. The UHP Modem has hardware PPPoE built-in. Anytime you can reduce the number of running programs on the PC leaves more resources for your other programs. 
Why do you need Wins? Are you running a multi-PC LAN? I don't use it in my 8 Year old mixed LAN (XP, Win9x, OS/2) and everything works as it should. Here is my setup.
You should be able to go though 85% of those FAQ links in under 2 hours leaving the harder ones for later. Most of them are just quick settings or reading to get you up to speed on UHP.
If you have only one PC then you can run PPPoE on it, but I suggest you replace both 98 and XP current setups with RASPPPoE instead.
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »How can I disable router mode on the UHP modem?
Note, while in Bridge Mode (so the PC's PPPoE will work) you cannot access the Modem's Private IP. That is Standard RFC for not allowing routing to access a Private IP while your Ethernet Card has a Public IP. Disconnection of the PPPoE session on the PC will then restore the ability to access the UHP Modem's Interface if you set a Static IP in the range/netblock of the UHP Modem's LAN.
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »Can I see what the UHP Modem's Web (HTTP) Interface looks like?
Regards,
Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| All hail, Dr. Olds!
That's the information I needed to figure out how to get my connection. It's not fast, and there are questions left unresolved, but it's working and holding.
I could not access the new Xyxel Prestige 645M UHP modem because I used PPPOE to access the internet over the former Westell Wirespeed modem, which did not support IP addressing by the NIC on the local machine. Since TCP/IP was not required, and I had no router or LAN here, the NIC was not bound to the TSP/IP protocol and could not access the Zyxel modem.
With LAN NIC binding to TCP/IP (but TCP/IP for LAN NIC not bound to any local "Client" or "Service") the NIC acquires an IP address, acts as a DHCP Server, and acts as a Default Gateway. It is difficult to visualize how this improves security on the local machine. :-( But it does give access to the modem ROM interface, where I found that the modem was in its default UHP mode setting.
UHP mode was not useable without having both the LAN setup for TCP/IP and entering the user name and password in the modem setup.
The failing DSL connections to the internet had been made by the local machine PPPOE software; that fact led to conflicts with the modem mode in place, and that caused the rapid failure of internet connectivity - though not a disconnect of the connection itself.
Two corrective options were available:
1) The modem could be left in UHP mode, the NIC could be left with TCP/IP enabled, and the user name and password entered so that the modem could establish and maintain connection to the PPPOE server. The old software PPPOE connections would be disused or uninstalled.
2) The UHP mode could be disabled, so the modem acted in bridge mode, and the local machine could use software PPPOE to establish and authenticate connections. Optionally, the TCP/IP software binding to the local machine NIC could be removed or left in place. (And thanks for reminding me I did not need WINS enabled, either.)
I chose the second option, with TCP/IP binding not in place for the NIC. The connection persists and tests out at:
dslreports.com speed test result on 2006-05-20 21:36:15 EST:
735 / 102
Your download speed : 735 kbps or 91.9 KB/sec.
That is 58.6% worse than an average user on covad.net
Your upload speed : 102 kbps or 12.8 KB/sec.
That is 73.9% worse than an average user on covad.net When I return from my travel I will need to run comparable tests on the UHP mode option, to see if the modem's mode has any impact on the connection speed. 7 to 10 it does not, in this location, which has some telephone line issues. (COVAD has set the line to "stability mode" due to line issues, and needs an Earthlink work order to address them.)
I chose to continue use of software PPPOE because it has worked well for the past 6 years, and because I did not want to bind TCP/IP to my NIC in the absence of a hardware firewall between it and the outside world.
I think the best long term solution may be to purchase a combination DSL modem, router, and hardware firewall, with wireless capability, and substitute it for the Zyxel. Then the software PPPOE on the local machine becomes truly redundant, and can be uninstalled.
Finally, I am 90% convinced that both Earthlink and Covad are mistaken in believing that there is no inherent incompatibity between the Westell Wirespeed modem and their provisioning of DSL to Earthlink customers.
This modem was working fine when the UUnet provisioning was terminated. And the current settings on the computer, supporting a stable Zyxel mediated connection, are identical to those which supported the Westell Wirespeed, so far as I can determine.
There is plenty of room for incompatibilities between the way the Westell modem passes software PPPOE originated UDP discovery requests to the provisioning servers, and the way the Zyxel does so. And the provisioning servers may react to differences by refusing to recognize and discarding "malformed" UDP discovery requests. Such incompatibilities apparently result in the server not recognizing or or not processing the Westell mediated requests.
If someone can find me a Westell Wirespeed modem (the plain, no model number, non IP addressable version) user whose modem survived the Earthlink initiated change in provisioning from UUnet to COVAD, I might change my bet on this.
Until then, I think both companies are in denial, and are spending their own and their customers' time and energy barking up the wrong problem solving tree. The first response should be to replace the Wirespeed modem.
Thanks again. I really, really appreciate the information, and the effort you made to give me a hand with this. | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| reply to Doctor Olds
Dr. Olds:
Below are Win XP data for the newly reconnected (thanks to your help) Earthlink DSL service.
The PPPOE direct to the internet setup using the DSL modem in bridge configuration, rather the UHP mode NAT Network device which would require TCP/IP on the NIC, looks nice and clean to me. These XP results are even simpler than those in Win 98.
I guess there is a trade off, where the NIC could carry the load of TCP/IP handling (if it has the brains with which to do that) and the NAT / UHP mode modem could handle the PPPOE connection, relieving the local machine of those loads.
But I am not sure that NIC's are so smart that they contribute all that much - and know of at least one company with patents on smart NIC technology that is selling the ability to offload session management onto the NIC as their business plan - the motive being that multiple session management is a large load that does not belong in the CPU environment and does belong on the NIC.
So I am pretty happy with this simple IPconfig report, and a NIC that has no protocols other than QOS packet management bound to it. And I wonder if there may be a security advantage, since the NIC / LAN TCP/IP facility would not be protected by a hardware firewall, here.
ipconfig /all
Windows IP Configuration
Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : 322nnn
Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . :
Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown
IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
PPP adapter Earthlink:
Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Description . . . . . . . . . . . : WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface
Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-53-45-00-00-00
Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 67.101.37.41
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 67.101.37.41
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 207.69.188.185
207.68.188.186
NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled
netstat -ano
Active Connections
Proto Local Address Foreign Address State PID
TCP 0.0.0.0:1025 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 4
TCP 0.0.0.0:1027 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 2004
TCP 0.0.0.0:1084 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1612
TCP 67.101.37.41:1084 66.110.201.18:80 ESTABLISHED 1612
TCP 127.0.0.1:1026 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 2004
TCP 127.0.0.1:1026 127.0.0.1:1027 ESTABLISHED 2004
TCP 127.0.0.1:1027 127.0.0.1:1026 ESTABLISHED 2004
PID 2004 is the Mozilla mail session
PID 1612 is the MyNetWatchman session
PID 4 is some system process I cannot identify. Wish I could.
Speed: Still not good.
dslreports.com speed test result on 2006-05-21 01:27:42 EST:
753 / 105
Your download speed : 753 kbps or 94.1 KB/sec.
That is 58% worse than an average user on covad.net
Your upload speed : 105 kbps or 13.1 KB/sec.
That is 73.6% worse than an average user on covad.net
This is a Covad provisioned Earthlink DSL line, over ATT/SBC local loop, about 6 blocks from the telco switching center.
Thanks again for your help, so very much.
Jim Pivonka | |
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
| reply to pivonka571
PID 4 is System as seen in the two images above. It opens a port starting at 1024 going upwards.
You really should be using RASPPPoE on both the XP and the Win98 PC as it uses very little resources compared to WinPoET and the XP client. Read about it and download it from here »www.raspppoe.com
I use the GUI client for XP called WNTIPCFG.exe from Microsoft instead of IPCONFIG.
»www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta···yLang=en
I always uncheck the QOS s it's not needed and just takes resources.
Regards,
Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| reply to pivonka571
Doctor Olds, you are making this really horrible experience with Earthlink's botch of my DSL switchover into such a useful learning experience I am almost cheerful again. I'll check out both of those very interesting suggestions, soon as I get back - and maybe on Dad's machine while I am away.
You know it is odd, but now that I know more about how NOT to be network enabled - how to eliminate network support not needed on a stand alone machine, but sitting there like it is a natural and necessary part of the setup (typical MS BS) - I think I might actually be able to understand a bit of networking. And maybe even Workstation / Server / Domain stuff.
If I decide I want to. Thanks again, very much. | |
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
| Glad to be of help where I can. 
I just remembered that sometimes Windows will go into a freeze every ten or fifteen minutes when it looks for DHCP server depending the state of TCP/IP. This can be fixed by manually setting a private Static IP for the Ethernet card.
Explained here:
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »Freezes and/or Stalling of my DSL?
IP list for modem hardware that EL has used in the past few years.
»EarthLink DSL FAQ »IP Address Information for Earthlink supported ADSL Modems
Also you were asking about the Ethernet card having a brain/processing power for PPPoE and it's actually the CPU handling the PPPoE as the Ethernet card doesn't have a processor per say. It has a small store and forward buffer for data instead.
It would be nice when you get back to see your ADSL Line Stats that show your Downstream Noise Margin, Attenuation and Capacity Occupation.
Here is info on PPPoE
This has the discovery stage explained What is PPPoE?
Regards,
Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? | |
notherone
@155.49.x.x
| reply to pivonka571
I have had a similar experience. After 3 years of flawless operation, on May 11 I started getting authentication errors. No one could figure out why. I rang up at least 6 hours of combined phone, email and chat time with the Earthlink support outsourcing shuffle (English as a second or third language ) before they decided the problem was the modem...so they sold me another modem and charged extra to overnight it ( total about $60 ). The new modem made no difference. (No one has mentioned a refund.)
Support then decided my line was bad and scheduled a technician to come to my house ( somewhere between 12 and 4 the following Tuesday).
A Covad person came to my house to check the lines, hooked up his laptop to my line and connected immediately. He got on the phone with Earthlink people, argued about who was responsible for the problem, then hung up, told me there was nothing he could do, expressed his sympathies and left.
After another several phone sessions, Earthlink support people explained to me they had discovered I had a static IP. ( I had told them this several hundred times. ) Static IPs they said were now handled by Covad. They promised to restore my service but said the IP address would not be the same, and they would have to call "the vendor" (Covad)
The next day a Level 3 support person called me, said the problem was fixed and read me a new static IP address.
I checked and found that, sure enough, for four hours the previous night I had logged a connection with that IP address, then lost connection and re-connected with a different non-static IP. 9 days later, despite several more hours on the phone, I still don't have a static address. When I call, they keep me on hold for awhile, then tell me they have read the file on my case ( which must be extensive by now ) and see that "they" are still working on the problem. I wanted to cancel the service, but I was left on hold almost as long as the contract lasts, so I gave up.
I actually had someone who said she was an executive in the support group call me and apologize profusely. She said my treatment was unacceptable and gave me a direct number to her office to call if there were any more problems. I called and left a message last week, but haven't heard back. | |
PASeattle
join:2006-05-24
Seattle, WA
2 edits | I had a similar experience with a client of mine who was trying to use Earthlink's SOHO DSL service, which DOES provide a static IP (along with a modem/router). Turns out after EL okayed the install using Earthlink/Covad/Qwest's database, the business location (approximately 13,000 feet from the CO) and other line conditions prevented reliable service.
Basically, the modem would train, lose sync after anywhere from seconds to minutes and then retrain -- over and over again. Trouble was, when this cycle occurred, the modem was given another IP address as the Covad equipment would think the original static address was still in use. (EL's U.S. Business Support techs said NOT to set the static IP in the modem...that their equipment would automatically re-assign the correct address. Unfortunately, as the techs saw first-hand, this did NOT happen.) After several visits from Covad and many calls to EL, the company finally threw in the towel and declared the line TNF.
[Mod edit..Please do not post Priority Support numbers.] | |
pivonka571
join:2005-02-03
La Crosse, KS
| reply to notherone
Maybe Doctor Olds will have some good advice for you, that addresses the fixed IP problem you are experiencing. In the meantime I would suggest that you make sure your local machine settings are compatible with your modem settings, and that you are using connection devices and methods appropriate to your setup. Specifically:
You need to know whether your DSL modem is set to operate in UHP/NAT mode or in bridge mode, and adjust your local machine PPPoE settings and NIC/LAN Local Area Network settings accordingly. Incompatibilities between settings on these devices can cause connection problems.
If you have a local area network there (I suspect you do, with a static IP) you may find it desirable to use the PPPoE facility provided in hardware by the modem, rather than a software PPPoE facility on your local machine. In this case, you will access the modem using TCP/IP protocol settings on your NIC, which are at least in part dependant on your modem. (Your modem may assign a private IP address to your NIC dynamically via DHCP, since your static IP facing the internet is on the modem.) (Local Machine PPPoE should not be involved - may be disconnected - in this case since PPPoE will be handled by the modem.)
I believe, but may be mistaken, that in this case you should also access the modem setup routine (which is in firmware ROM on the modem) and set your static IP in the modem, which presents it to the internet.
BUT I seem to recall that if you have a router between your network and the DSL modem, then the modem should be in bridge mode, with the static IP address on the router. I don't quite "get" this, since I don't remember where the PPPoe function is handled. This is not a setup I would use, in any case.
To test the connection without the complicating factor of the network and router in the mix, take it out, and set the static IP in the modem. If the connection holds, then the modem must be reset to bridge mode before putting the router back in the mix.
In my case, with NO LAN and a dynamic IP, the best approach is to use bridge mode in the modem, and access it across a protocol free NIC from software PPPoE on the local machine. If you had no network I could in good conscience recommend this approach to you. It involves making sure the modem is in bridge mode, setting the appropriate TCP/IP configuration - including IP address - in the PPPoE connection, and (important) removing all protocols and services from the NIC.
If I were operating a network I would not use a router between the a DSL modem and networked devices. Rather, I would obtain an integrated ADSL modem - router - wireless device and use it. One example of such a device is here »www.netgear.com/products/details/DG834G.php
I would not worry about whether Earthlink supports it either, if I could get Covad to confirm that it is compatible with the signal requirements of their link provisioning. Earthlink does not support anything these days, in actuality, so their "non-support" of a device is pretty irrelevant. | |
vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
2 edits | quote:
If I were operating a network I would not use a router between the a DSL modem and networked devices. Rather, I would obtain an integrated ADSL modem - router - wireless device and use it.
The problem with this route is that if you obtain such a device where one or more of the functions isn't well implemented, it almost renders the device useless or crippled at best. I have mainly read about negative experiences with these jack-of-all-trades devices. I myself have a Belkin Pre-N used as an AP (the firewall and QOS features are buggy at best) and an old SMC wireless 802.1b router (which I used before obtaining the Belkin, foolishly thinking I wouldn't need it again...its firewall is actually functional!) that connects to my provider (currently AT&T) using PPPoE via the Speedstream 5100a DSL modem. I can only imagine that the complexity of such a device combining all these functions would generate quite a number of headaches for the end-user. That said, I wouldn't mind trying one out! I'm all for maximizing office/desktop real estate. | |
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
1 edit | I prefer a ADSL Modem/Router over multiple devices. I'm currently using a Speedstream 5100 with Router Firmware.
Regards,
Doctor Olds | |
|
