Hi Josh, Duncan,
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 08:03:57 J MacCraw wrote:
> Should I re-write the paragraph verbatim? What clarification do you
> need?
>
> You were talking about the ROUTER in bridge mode missing Duncan's
> query about the MODEM in bridge mode, that was the thrust of my
> response.
Right I see the confusion.
The only DSL modem that I know of that has internal configuration
settings enabling it to be set into bridge mode, is actually a single
port router. And yes I agree can do NAT.
Here in the UK its very rare to see a straight modem. Virtually all the
DSL boxes over here are usually four port routers, with or without
wireless. I often set these to bridge mode when they are feeding a
firewall appliance, which is not very common in a domestic environment.
So apologies to Duncan if I've confused the issue. I hadn't realised
that you were talking about two separate items of kit.
> Clearly he was asking from the standpoint of the modem, as
> would anyone talking DSL with half a clue as he very well seems to on
> this matter. I respect that Duncan comes [H] for answers I like to be
> sure he gets a clear, concise answers.
In that case wouldn't it have been incumbent on you to have stepped in
sooner to make clarification !
> Quotes:
> >If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing
> >NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall
> >has nothing to do with NAT.
>
> and
>
> >You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall
> >switched on and NAT switched on its not in "Bridge Mode"'
>
> On 6/29/2010 12:14 PM, Gaffer wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > On Tuesday 29 June 2010 08:00:18 Josh MacCraw wrote:
> >> Uh Gaffer needs to read& process the info better! The only
> >> "bridge mode" here is on the *DSL MODEM* which is where the
> >> *ROUTER* sends the PPOE credentials (if even needed) instead of
> >> the modem resulting in a live IP on the router's WAN port instead
> >> of being double NAT'd.
> >
> > Would you care to clarify your comments.
> >
> >> On 6/28/2010 3:47 PM, Gaffer wrote:
> >>> Hi Duncan,
> >>>
> >>> On Monday 28 June 2010 21:50:10 DSinc wrote:
> >>>> Gaffer,
> >>>> My replies are inline............
> >>>> TNX, anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 06/28/2010 15:45, Gaffer wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday 28 June 2010 18:54:39 DSinc wrote:
> >>>>>> I still use xDSL. Soon I will move to FIOS. Well, as I get
> >>>>>> smarter and answer my ?many? questions (another thread in
> >>>>>> play!)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am beginning (again) to have trouble with my xDSL
> >>>>>> connection. I suspect someone local (or ?) keeps camping out
> >>>>>> on my assigned IP addy from my ISP so that they can just dick
> >>>>>> with my xDSL modem or my Router.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I know I have my xDSL modem set to a "bridge" mode. I suspect
> >>>>>> this makes it a straight wire connection to my Router's WAN
> >>>>>> port.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would never use "Bridge Mode" unless I was feeding a box that
> >>>>> was specifically setup to be a firewall, something like "IP
> >>>>> Cop".
> >>>>
> >>>> Should I NOT use "bridge mode" in my TELCO-supplied modem I
> >>>> would be Double Nat-ng and have 2 firewalls.
> >>>
> >>> If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing
> >>> NAT or firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a
> >>> firewall has nothing to do with NAT.
> >>>
> >>>> I view this as excess overhead.
> >>>> Perhaps my bad.
> >>>> My router does both NAT and supports its' own firewall and SPI.
> >>>> Both of these selections have been activated since day one!
> >>>
> >>> You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall
> >>> switched on and NAT switched on its not in "Bridge Mode"
> >>>
> >>>>>> I think I have my Router as |strong| as I currently comprehend
> >>>>>> its' directions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your router is not being used as anything but a modem. Its
> >>>>> most valuable assets are being thrown away by it being
> >>>>> configured as it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please share some more logic to this? I believe that my
> >>>> Router is my single point of 1st protection to Inbound stuff.
> >>>> Or, perhaps you and I are "wired" differently. This comment I do
> >>>> not understand.
> >>>
> >>> I doubt that we are "wired" differently. :-)
> >>> But you are right, the router should be the 1st point of
> >>> protection. If you really have "Bridge Mode" turned on, then its
> >>> simply a modem without offering any protection. All "Bridge
> >>> Mode" does is pass on the IP address that the ISP assigns to your
> >>> connection.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Turns out, I have to save Router logs and reboot the Router
> >>>>>> about every 3-7 days to recover a semi-firm connection. The
> >>>>>> Router is a DLink DGL-4300. All wireless is disabled. I use
> >>>>>> wired LAN only.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I use a Dlink router. I have mine set to firewall and NAT.
> >>>>> The firewall blocks all unrequested incoming traffic and lets
> >>>>> everything out. NAT allows me to use a range of IP addresses
> >>>>> that are not Internet routeable effectively allowing the use of
> >>>>> several machines from the single IP that my ISP assigns me.
> >>>>> Which incidentally changes each time I restart the router.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. Understand this logic. Same-same. That's how life is here
> >>>> too. The problem is I have to re-boot the Router several times a
> >>>> day!
> >>>
> >>> This is a totally different issue !
> >>> This could simply be a noisy incoming line providing a weak noisy
> >>> signal. In fact a weak noisy signal to the router could be
> >>> anywhere between the CO and the router.
> >>>
> >>> Or it could be that the router is dieing. I've replaced my
> >>> router several times because its performance has become degraded,
> >>> probably due to high voltage transients on the telephone line
> >>> feeding it. I've also had the spark gaps replaced because they
> >>> have been damaged during thunder storms.
My router is directly connected to the incoming line. There is no
separate modem. Its built into the router.
> >>>>>> Is this possible? Do not know why someone local chooses to
> >>>>>> pick on me? I will suppose giggles and laughs for the present!
> >>>>>> This is the same view to me as past electrical storm
> >>>>>> interference I had with an older (retired) xdsl modem.
> >>>
> >>> The more I read your post, the more I'm inclined to think that
> >>> the router could be suspect and the electrical storm interference
> >>> you refer to could be the reason.
In light of the above clarification, read "modem" instead of "router" in
the above paragraph.
> >>>>> Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on
> >>>>> your machine that reports your machines presence on the
> >>>>> Internet. In all probability you wouldn't know if you had.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please share more about "tracking beacon's?" I will go do a
> >>>> search/destroy on them as necessary. I have yet to find one/any
> >>>> yet!
> >>>
> >>> OK ! how about the ones that you installed as part of installing
> >>> the driver for a piece of hardware...
> >>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal
> >>>>>> "baddie" in play; other than every scanner I have used comes
> >>>>>> up negative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What makes you think a scanner will find and report every
> >>>>> "baddie" that you might have on your machine.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, I do not. I use what I use. I then use what is suggested to
> >>>> me by my betters. And, most of the time, I do find a hint from
> >>>> this List! I have both patience and trust in this List. This
> >>>> anomaly is just another matter of time at best. At worst, I do
> >>>> so hope the miscreant will eventually burn in hell!
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Thought? Suggestions? Ideas?
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Duncan
> >>>
> >>> Wireshark is good...
--
Best Regards:
Derrick.
Running Open SuSE 11.1 KDE 3.5.10 Desktop.
Pontefract Linux Users Group.
plug @ play-net.co.uk
