| |
Nick5 to Rattler
Anon
2014-Feb-1 1:34 pm
to Rattler
[Pricing] Re: Here comes the Router rental fee of $4.99said by Rattler:What happens to the router rental fee if someone decides to buy a Rev. I from V* and returns the router they provided at installation - obviously this would apply to new installs. There'd be no question that it wouldn't be a non-rental router under those circumstances. Since it is so old, I don't think they will really want the old one all that badly or be eager to replace it. That said, as a loyal customer, and since it was they decided to limit DVR, guide and on demand functionality to Actiontec setups you may get them to play ball. I suggest you contact them ASAP before the reps get too used to the buying/renting of routers idea. Make sure you mention how it is unfair you can't utilize the On-Demand and guide functionality included in your TV plan. (only mention DVR if you are subscribed to it or want to hint at possible being interested) |
|
| |
said by Nick5 :That said, as a loyal customer, and since it was they decided to limit DVR, guide and on demand functionality to Actiontec setups you may get them to play ball. To clarify this - only the remote services such as Caller-ID-on-TV and Remote DVR require the actiontec. VOD, guide, and other services work just fine without the Actiontec. The FAQ provides the details. |
|
 PA23
join:2001-12-12
East Hanover, NJ |
PA23
Member
2014-Feb-2 2:46 pm
said by Shady Bimmer:To clarify this - only the remote services such as Caller-ID-on-TV and Remote DVR require the actiontec. VOD, guide, and other services work just fine without the Actiontec. The FAQ provides the details. Don't know about the Remote DVR (I don't have one), but I can confirm you DO NOT need the actiontec router for the Caller-ID on the TV. My ONT handoff is Ethernet to a Cisco router and I'm using a TiVo for an Ethernet to MoCa bridge to supply the one FiOS cable box I have. I received caller ID on that box with no issues, the channel guide worked and so did VOD. --PA23 |
|
| |
What steps did you take to get caller-id working with the Cisco router? I'd like to update the FAQs. |
|
PA23
join:2001-12-12
East Hanover, NJ |
PA23
Member
2014-Feb-2 3:57 pm
Nothing special at all, it just worked. |
|
| |
said by PA23:Nothing special at all, it just worked. Presumably you at least had to create port forwards and create ACLs to allow the inbound traffic. Did you already have it enabled before you replaced the AT with your Cisco? (For me it did not. Once it was enabled it worked fine but not before) Do you have to do anything when your IP changes? (When my IP changed, I had to make the AT available again for CallerID to start working again) Does Caller-ID on your TV continue to work after you attempt an auto-correct via the STB? (Mine did not until I made the AT available again) Channel guide and VOD do not use inbound connections initiated by VZ, however Remote DVR and CallerID both do. |
|
|
PA23
join:2001-12-12
East Hanover, NJ |
PA23
Member
2014-Feb-3 6:39 pm
I turned in the last verizon box a week ago so I can't do any further testing however I can confirm
1) I did not need to create any inbound ACL's for the STB traffic, the STB initiated a connection thus poking a hole through the firewall
2) I did have Caller-ID enabled prior to replacing the AT router
3) I simply pulled the AT router out of the network, enabled one of my TiVo's to become a MoCa bridge and Caller-ID continued to work
Prior to pulling the AT out of the network, I did setup for a double nat type configuration with 2 routers plus the AT router, on my inside router I NAT'ed between a private address on its "public" interface and the dynamically provided public address that Verizon provided on its "private" interface. I never updated the routers pseudo public address when my real outside address changed and noticed that Caller-id continued to work.
At that point I simply pulled the AT router and second internal router off the network enable MoCa bridging and found everything continued to work.
I did try the self help/caller-id test on the STB and it worked as well.
I don't know if I was just lucky or Verizon has changed how they do things |
|
|
| |
said by PA23:1) I did not need to create any inbound ACL's for the STB traffic, the STB initiated a connection thus poking a hole through the firewall Not quite. Remote DVR and Caller-ID are initiated remotely on the VZ side. If you did not create any ACLs or port forwards in your Cisco router then these two services could not have worked. This is why you will see these port forwards in the AT router after enabling them and why the FAQ details how to set these up if you make your own router the primary. 2) I did have Caller-ID enabled prior to replacing the AT router I already noted this earlier. If you had the service enabled already then VZ knows how to reach the STB/DVR via the external interface on your router. If the service had not yet been enabled then you likely would not be able to successfully enable it without the AT, but once it is enabled you may not need the AT until the details change. Prior to pulling the AT out of the network, I did setup for a double nat type configuration with 2 routers plus the AT router, on my inside router I NAT'ed between a private address on its "public" interface and the dynamically provided public address that Verizon provided on its "private" interface. I never updated the routers pseudo public address when my real outside address changed and noticed that Caller-id continued to work. Could you clarify further? Which of the configurations in the FAQ did you use? What is a 'private' interface as used here? What is a 'pseudo public address' as used here? |
|
PA23
join:2001-12-12
East Hanover, NJ |
PA23
Member
2014-Feb-4 3:24 pm
said by Shady Bimmer:Not quite. Remote DVR and Caller-ID are initiated remotely on the VZ side. If you did not create any ACLs or port forwards in your Cisco router then these two services could not have worked. This is why you will see these port forwards in the AT router after enabling them and why the FAQ details how to set these up if you make your own router the primary. I can assure you I had no translation rules or ACLs for traffic going to my STB, and the STB received an address via DHCP said by Shady Bimmer:Could you clarify further? Which of the configurations in the FAQ did you use? What is a 'private' interface as used here? What is a 'pseudo public address' as used here? I believe its what the FAQ calls a "three router configuration" #8 Again I simply pulled the three router configuration out and put the STB directly on my "main" network, I did not adjust any translations or NAT rules. |
|
