Stupid computer question

[Deja Q]

Sigh. The DSL line won't be up until tomorrow, 5PM CST.

Meanwhile, I hooked up the Actiontec external DSL modem to my firewall/router device's "internet" port (which is separate from the 8 port ethernet switch.)

The firewall device had to be renamed to 192.168.0.202 as the modem's addy is 192.168.0.1.

The modem appears to be communicating with the firewall/router as the LAN LED occasionally flickers.

I know the modem isn't communicating over the phone line, the green constantly flashing 'internet' light proves that.

But you'd think I'd be able to connect to 192.168.0.1 to access its configuration menu.

Except I can't. I can't even ping to it.

The firewall's DHCP server is set up to assign 192.168.0.2-192.168.0.200 as needed.

192.168.0.1 ought to be accessible... The link light is on and there is activity... I haven't wittingly disabled the IP addy.

Does the modem need to be connected to the internet in order to be configured?!

Now it could very well be the firewall prventing access for some reason (could the fact this thing has a separate "internet" port be significant?), but I'm seeing nothing that proves this. The firewall log DID have one entry, claiming that the WAN received and dropped a packet, thinking that 192.168.0.1 was a spoofed address...
Thanks!

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. You don't need to do anything to the modem

You need to configure your router only, so that it can speak with the modem.

But your modem shouldn't have an address anyway.

You shuold have it hooked up thus: phone line into the modem; ethernet cable from modem to router; ethernet cable from router to your computer.

[4morewars]

2. try 192.168.1.1 <eom>

[Deja Q]

5. Manual says 192.168.0.1. Besides,

192.168.1.1 returns an instant error. Likely, nothing was found at that addy.

192.168.0.1 has a nice long nail-biting pause before it comes back saying it couldn't connect. That's a definite time-out.

Mozilla does say "Connectio to 192.168.0.1 refused", which might be significant...

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. And also, if your DSL provider gave you any software

to install on your computer to speak with the modem, don't install any of it. And if you have installed it, remove it all. Entirely.

You won't need any of it, since you have the router. The router will handle all the actual communication.

[Deja Q]

6. I never would! Besides,

I'm using Linux and I want the modem to work over a LAN so my Winbloat boxes can partake that is ADSL internet too. :D

Good to know. It's likely I don't need to communicate with the modem at all; the firewall/router doig all the login/authentication work.

I just like my connectivity and control. :-)

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Right - you will never communicate with the modem

The router does all that, even with linux running on your box. Modems don't get IP addresses, only actual communicative equipment - your computer, the router, servers, coke machines connected through RS232, etc.

[Deja Q]

12. Ah, the DSL modem might have routing capability, hence the addy

specified in the joke of a manual that came with it.

Either the Netgear router will take care of the DSL gateway modem, OR I will have a conflict with two components vying for control...

I'll still do a direct connect and see if I can conenct to its menu configuration screen. Otherwise, I may not have a problem at all...

[Gman]

4. Why is the modem 192.168.0.1

and the router/FW 202? Which one is the DHCP server? Is the modem just a plain 'ol modem or is it also a DHCP server? Which one is the gateway? Are both functioning as a DHCP server? (you should only have one) If so, there's a conflict.

The device that has the sole DHCP server on the system should have 192.168.0.1 (or 1.1 like my Linksys). 192.168.0.1 is should also be the gateway for your system but it looks like the gateway might actually be 192.168.0.202. Of course it can also depend on your gateway entry on your TCP/IP settings.

Just guessing without seeing the setup. BTW, I know it can be hard to make yourself do sometimes (I know I hate to do it), but it really does help to read manuals sometimes! :-)

Is this rambling or am I making sense???

[cprompt]

8. try this

if you had an ip address from your ISP then hooked this up, do ipconfig /release first to clear the gateway information, if you are plugging into a hub you have to have it off crossover mode, should be a "x" switch on router. once thats done do reset router and do ipconfig /renew.

[Deja Q]

10. Why not?

Both devices were sold using 192.168.0.1.

Obviously, one of them had to change or otherwise there'd be a conflict; only the first device on the network using 192.168.0.1 would work on the network; any other device trying to use the same addy would go nowhere. So I had to reconfigure the Netgear router/firewall to 192.168.0.202.

The Netgear router/firewall is the DHCP server, that I did activate.

I found nothing in the DSL gateway's manual suggesting it is a DHCP server. (though I'm amused that this gateway modem has four ethernet jacks...) Indeed, neither manual says much of anything in any great detail, if any detail at all. My existing knowledge is how I've gotten anywhere at all. The DSL gateway has a CD for Windows users and your basic "connect the green wire (to phone jack) here, yellow wire (ethernet) here, purple wire (USB) here" pull-out that even a kindergartener wouldn't need to read.

I know the phrase. RTFM. I did RTFM. I've been R'ing every FM I've got and they're all made for novice twats who wouldn't know the difference between a MAC or IP; unless it was an Apple computer and toilet humor... I've passed enough Network+ mock-up tests and remember enough of the theories to be beyond the beginners' crap... why do none of these manuals cater to those who know enough to be dangerous?!

Given what you've said about what should be 192.168.0.1, it's quite possble that the DSL gateway is a fully fledged router with DHCP capability. Dunno, it's strange that the Netgear router/firewall still acts as the de facto DHCP server...

What I should do is to disconnect the firewall/router and hook up the DSL gateway directly to the computer and see if I then can connect to 192.168.0.1 to configure the DSL gateway device. From there, disable DHCP if it's got it (which is possible, this modem has 4 ethernet jacks and could be more than what's been said as well) and let the Netgear device handle it all. Pity I didn't think of that earlier...

[4morewars]

13. D'oh !!!! <eom>

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. AHA! Your modem is also a router

That's the problem.

You didn't mention that. :-)

[cprompt]

15. well

there wouldn't be a conflict since we are only talking about one device that would have that address. 192.xxx.xxx.xxx is a reserved set of ip addresses that can only be used on a local network and not routed over the internet. you dsl modem gives your network card an ip address based off a bin file in its config telling it what to do, you are now allowing the router to be your network card. it has your external ip, its LAN ip is 192.xxx.xxx.xxx and so will all of your clients be.

[4morewars]

9. when in doubt reboot.....

everything. Leave them off for 1 solid minute to clear any memory. then check all your rj45 connections just for shits and giggles. Also if the manual says it is 192.168.0.1, then it is. hook every thing up like rabrrr said and power up and see what happens.

[sendero]

11. repeat...

... I've never seen a DSL modem that needs configuring. The router/gateway however does. I don't think your modem is going to talk to you, it has no reason to :)

[Deja Q]

16. Figured it out...

I don't seem to need the netgear device at all! :crazy: This actiontec thing has router/firewall/vpn/dhcp/everything in one. :eyes:

Wow, and the thing only costs $70 as well... the Netgear device was $150!

Well, I'll try the actiontec device on its own. If I'm not happy with the firewall protection, I can use the netgear device...

[Rabrrrrrr]

damn double posting potential

where's heisenberg?

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. And you can test your security here:

https://grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

A very valuable resource.

Also, go to just plain http://www.grc.com

according to them, and other security checkers, I'm invisble on the net. Though I don't believe in 100% security, since I'm an electrical engineer I know that to any sufficiently motivated person any system WILL be - that is WILL BE - compromised, with my router, and my judicious security settings in Windows (alas, yes, I'm on Windows), I'm basically invisible to the world. That's a good feeling. :-)

It's mostly due to the linksys router I use - thank the maker for them - but I'm pretty damn careful since I'm on DSL and my computers, for the most part, are never turned off.

[4morewars]

18. that's a great sight !!!!!

i'm also invisible, in great part to my linksys also, but you are right about a motivated hacker being able to get in !!!

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. And, you see, this is one of the things I get totally angry and irritated

about in America - the otal lack of mathematical and scientific understanding of the people.

The people who bitch and moan when their $15,000 car doesn't remain undented when it hits a lightpost, so they call for making lightposts "safer". Or they call for making cars "safer". I mean, yes, obviously, things should be as safe as they can be, but there is NO WAY IN HELL EVER ABSOLUTELY to make ANYTHING 100% safe. That includes buildings, bridges, cars, trains, EVERYTHING.

Jesus, people, get a clue - EVERYTHING that is produced is made with some balance between safety, price, and complexity of manufacturing.

You want a truly safe car, you miserable mathematic-failure? Then you better be willing to pay $1.5 million, and get 0.5 miles to the gallon for it, because it will weigh 35,000 pounds and go no more than 15 miles per hour. You want a 100% safe bridge? You better be willing to live with a disgusting monstrosity that's 1100 foot thick iron and costs a million times more than any bridge your tax money has ever paid for.

Oh, infinitely long screed of swear words, I get so angry at the general population's utter lack of understanding - and their utter lack of WILLINGNESS to even ATTEMPT to understand how shit works. Seriously. This kind of shit totally cheeses me off.

I mean, the assholes who want 100% safety, or 100% reliability, are the same assholes who bitch about the expense, and who also play the lottery as their "retirement account".

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

[4morewars]

20. education IS the answer

my friend, too bad we don't see that in this country anymore.
btw, the lottery is a tax on people that don't understand math !!!!

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. abso-frickin'-lutely!

the lottery is atax on the poor, and a tax on the ignorant.

And you know, I don't mind taxing the ignorant - or I should say, the willing ignorant - because they cost us a boatload of money. But I hate the tax on the poor who, through no fault of their own, end up stupid and misinformed and in hopeless situations.