4:12 p.m.
.
I have a new problem with my internet connection which a few others on
this list may have encountered. They [Viasat] replaced the modem and
antenna in upgrading the system. The new modem has an integral router
having none of the feature I need to manage data usage, I've already
used more than 80% of my allowance in the first week. I normally use a
router with DD-WRT installed providing the features I need, showing the
amount of data used and which devices used it.
The problem is feeding their router data through my DD-WRT router. An
ethernet port is provided which they claim work but provide no
information for doing so. They sent a "technician" a few days ago and he
knew nothing more about it than I do except he assured me it should work
but did not know how to set up both routers, tried what he could for an
hour and said if you can't make it work and call for help, tell them to
send someone else ...
Yesterday I tried with my router set up on a different subnet and
seemingly working until in one of many equipment reboots their router
assigned my nfs server a new address, of course all I knew was it would
not mount until I connected a display and keyboard this morning, Now I
made theaddresspermanentusing network manager. Before this the modems
provided an ethernet port to which a wifi router was connected and
connecting to that was straight forward.
Certainly I am not the first one to see this problem, feeding data from
the ISP router to another one, and my hope is that someone can point me
in the right direction if not offer a solution. Google searches have not
led to a solution.
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
4:38 p.m.
On 4/14/19 2:12 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I have a new problem with my internet connection which a few others
on
this list may have encountered. They [Viasat] replaced the modem and
antenna in upgrading the system. The new modem has an integral router
having none of the feature I need to manage data usage, I've already
used more than 80% of my allowance in the first week. I normally use a
router with DD-WRT installed providing the features I need, showing the
amount of data used and which devices used it.
The first thing to try is ask your provider to switch the modem into
bridged mode. That is what I get for the places I manage. In some
cases, it might involve setting up PPPOE on your end. If they can't or
won't do that, then you'll have to try the other options.
The problem is feeding their router data through my DD-WRT router. An
ethernet port is provided which they claim work but provide no
information for doing so. They sent a "technician" a few days ago and he
knew nothing more about it than I do except he assured me it should work
but did not know how to set up both routers, tried what he could for an
hour and said if you can't make it work and call for help, tell them to
send someone else ...
If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can just ignore it.
Connect the WAN port on your router to the ethernet port on the modem.
You end up with double NAT, but it should still work.
5:41 p.m.
On 04/14/19 17:38, Samuel Sieb wrote:
If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can just ignore
it. Connect the WAN port on your router to the ethernet port on the
modem. You end up with double NAT, but it should still work.
.
Yeah, I think it's a poor design for the application, I found no way to
shut it off. We have been connecting to the WAN on my router. All they
have is what appears to be two identical Ethernet portss on the
modem-router, both seem to work for conncting my Ethernet LAN. However I
have not been able to pass that data through my router to the LAN or the
wifi signal. Their wifi signal is what the iPhone and iPads are using
now ... I may be doing something wrong in the security configuration?
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
6:04 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 06:41:14PM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 04/14/19 17:38, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
>If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can just
>ignore it. Connect the WAN port on your router to the ethernet
>port on the modem. You end up with double NAT, but it should
>still work.
.
Yeah, I think it's a poor design for the application, I found no way
to shut it off. We have been connecting to the WAN on my router. All
they have is what appears to be two identical Ethernet portss on the
modem-router, both seem to work for conncting my Ethernet LAN.
However I have not been able to pass that data through my router to
the LAN or the wifi signal. Their wifi signal is what the iPhone and
iPads are using now ... I may be doing something wrong in the
security configuration?
Presumably, their router is pre-configured to use dhcp, so when
wiring your router to theirs, yours should be c onfigured to use
dhcp on the WAN side. I've seen this done before and it works fine
in those cases.
As for disablinig the wifi on their router, if you can't log into
it from the wired lan, maybe you can detach its wifi antenna?
Good luck!
Fred
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
------------------------------ Matthew 7:21 (niv) -----------------------------
6:10 p.m.
ON @kingstontech
-----Original Message-----
From: <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:04:47 -0400
To: 3603060030(a)txt.att.net
Subject: Re: Modem/Router/Router -
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 06:41:14PM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/14/19 17:38, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> >If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can ju
==================================================================
This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T
6:13 p.m.
Please ignore that message.
-----Original Message-----
From: <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:10:05 +0000 (UTC)
To: 3603060030(a)txt.att.net
Subject: RE: Re: Modem/Router/Router -
ON @kingstontech
-----Original Message-----
From: <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:04:47 -0400
To: 3603060030(a)txt.att.net
Subject: Re: Mo
==================================================================
This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T
6:23 p.m.
On 14Apr2019 18:41, Bob Goodwin <bobgoodwin(a)fastmail.us> wrote:
On 04/14/19 17:38, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can just ignore
>it. Connect the WAN port on your router to the ethernet port on the
>modem. You end up with double NAT, but it should still work.
.
Yeah, I think it's a poor design for the application, I found no way
to shut it off. We have been connecting to the WAN on my router. All
they have is what appears to be two identical Ethernet portss on the
modem-router, both seem to work for conncting my Ethernet LAN. However
I have not been able to pass that data through my router to the LAN or
the wifi signal. Their wifi signal is what the iPhone and iPads are
using now ... I may be doing something wrong in the security
configuration?
We do what you're wanting. Ignoring, for now, turning off the wifi on
their router, we run our own firewall inside the ISP router(s). If
nothing else it gives us complete control, and makes us ISP tech
agnostic.
Our setup also has two distinct DHCP arrangements, because we've got two
ISPs.
Our setup is like this:
sat-modem <-> FW <-> 4G-modem
^
|
V
LAN
Hoping you're using a fixed width font here :-) All though arrows are
ethernet cables.
Our firewall runs OpenBSD (I will use PF instead of iptables any day),
but anything good will do.
On the satellite side the firewall runs DHCP - it always gets the same
address but the DHCP is part of the link setup at the far end - it has
to happen or their switching doesn't start routing stuff. And on the
satellite side we run NAT on our ourbound traffic - the ISP gives us a
private address and our own LAN addresses are of course meaningless to
them. Of course, since the ISP gives us a private address they also run
NAT at their end. It all works fine.
On the 4G side the firewall runs a static address to the 4G modem, which
is your conventional local-ethetnet+wifi device - we run that as a
distinct subnet. Because the 4G modem itself does NAT, we don't bother
NATing on the 4G FW interface - it is a plain static route direct from
the interface setup. We don't need to NAT on the FW because we own the
4g modem interior net.
We run our own wifi network inside attached to the "LAN" above; the FW
provides the DHCP; we just use an Airport in bridge mode.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au>
7:37 p.m.
On 4/14/19 3:41 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 04/14/19 17:38, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can just ignore
> it. Connect the WAN port on your router to the ethernet port on the
> modem. You end up with double NAT, but it should still work.
.
Yeah, I think it's a poor design for the application, I found no way to
shut it off. We have been connecting to the WAN on my router. All they
have is what appears to be two identical Ethernet portss on the
modem-router, both seem to work for conncting my Ethernet LAN. However I
have not been able to pass that data through my router to the LAN or the
wifi signal. Their wifi signal is what the iPhone and iPads are using
now ... I may be doing something wrong in the security configuration?
You could turn off dhcp on your router and then connect through the LAN
ports, but that's not what your original email indicated that you wanted.
Connect only the WAN port on your router to one of the ethernet ports on
the modem. Leave the rest of your network connected to your router the
same way it was before. As long as you aren't trying to connect in from
outside, it's almost the same as it was.
3:08 a.m.
On 04/14/19 20:37, Samuel Sieb wrote:
You could turn off dhcp on your router and then connect through the
LAN ports, but that's not what your original email indicated that you
wanted.
Connect only the WAN port on your router to one of the ethernet ports
on the modem. Leave the rest of your network connected to your router
the same way it was before. As long as you aren't trying to connect
in from outside, it's almost the same as it was.
_______________________________________________
u
.
Initially the ISP feed was into the WAN port on my dd-wrt router a [a
system I have been using for 13 years] and nothing was reaching the LAN,
wired or wifi. Normally the router feeds a 16 port switch that connects
the equipment on my wired LAN, to workaround the problem I have moved
the ISP input from the WAN jack to one of the Ethernet output ports, the
router is doing nothing but acting as a "switch" or hub, a straight
through Ethernet adapter does about the same thing. That bypasses all
the logging features that I must have to regulate usage ...
The ISP equipment does everything the ordinary user needs, mainly wifi,
and a wired connection, but it leaves me with no control other than to
pull the ac power plug.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
9:19 a.m.
On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 04:08 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Initially the ISP feed was into the WAN port on my dd-wrt router a
[a system I have been using for 13 years] and nothing was reaching
the LAN, wired or wifi. Normally the router feeds a 16 port switch
that connects the equipment on my wired LAN, to workaround the
problem I have moved the ISP input from the WAN jack to one of the
Ethernet output ports, the router is doing nothing but acting as a
"switch" or hub, a straight through Ethernet adapter does about the
same thing. That bypasses all the logging features that I must have
to regulate usage ...
Sounds like a bit of diagnosis is needed. Some first steps:
Connect a computer directly to their equipment, and tell us the
numerical IP address your computer gets assigned (e.g. run the
"ifconfig" command, tell us the "inet" address for the ethernet port).
This IP is safe to state in public (it's isolated from everyone by
being in a NAT, and your public IP is in your mail headers, anyway).
It's likely to be something like: 192.168.1.12
Now, connect a computer directly to your own router, and do the same
thing.
If you can't spot the right data in the ifconfig output, just copy the
whole block. There'll be about 9 lines of data for your ethernet (or
WiFi), and another 8 for the local loopback (127.0.0.1) network. The
ethernet (or WiFi) data is what we'd like to see.
While I can spot problems with IPv4 addresses (e.g. 192.168.1.12)
within a LAN, I'm not familiar enough with IPv6 addresses to spot
issues (e.g. fe80::8178:8ef9:4a4f:517e), but others will be.
NB: In itself, IPv6 can be a problem (if your ISP doesn't support it,
but your LAN equipment uses it). Your equipment can try to connect to
IPv6 addresses on the internet, expecting to be able to, but hit a
solid roadblock at your ISP.
10:54 a.m.
On 4/15/19 1:08 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Initially the ISP feed was into the WAN port on my dd-wrt router a [a
system I have been using for 13 years] and nothing was reaching the LAN,
wired or wifi. Normally the router feeds a 16 port switch that connects
What IP range are you using on your router? If you're going to use the
192.168.0.0/16 range, then it's a good idea to pick a random higher
subnet to avoid conflicting with ISP provided equipment or other sites
if you use VPN. If the modem is providing the same subnet that your
router is, then the routing will get confused.
the equipment on my wired LAN, to workaround the problem I have moved
the ISP input from the WAN jack to one of the Ethernet output ports, the
router is doing nothing but acting as a "switch" or hub, a straight
through Ethernet adapter does about the same thing. That bypasses all
the logging features that I must have to regulate usage ...
Since this is working, that suggests that the previous theory is
correct. Unless you disabled dhcp on your router, it will be providing
IP addresses still and since things are working, the addresses must be
compatible.
If you find out that this is the case, then change the dhcp range on
your router and you should be able to go back to using the WAN port.
8:16 p.m.
Samuel Sieb:
> If you can't disable the wifi on the modem, then you can
just
> ignore it. Connect the WAN port on your router to the ethernet
> port on the modem. You end up with double NAT, but it should still
> work.
Bob Goodwin:
Yeah, I think it's a poor design for the application, I found no
way
to shut it off.
It's usually called bridge mode. You could see if there's a factory
reset option, then see if there's a guided set-up process that asks you
what mode it will operate in.
Another option could be to set up a DMZ on their router pointing to
yours. NB: Your router absolutely must be between them and the rest
of your LAN.
We have been connecting to the WAN on my router. All they have is
what appears to be two identical Ethernet portss on the modem-router,
both seem to work for conncting my Ethernet LAN. However I have not
been able to pass that data through my router to the LAN or the
wifi signal. Their wifi signal is what the iPhone and iPads are
using now ... I may be doing something wrong in the security
configuration?
Did they set up their equipment's SSID with the same name as your own?
If so, that'll make it harder for you to manually select yours. Try
renaming your own SSID, and select the newly named WiFi network.
Another issue will be the networking addresses. e.g. If their
equipment uses the 192.168.0.0-255 range, then change yours to use
another range, such as 192.168.1.0-255, or 10.0.0.0-255.
NAT through NAT *can* work with them both set using the same network,
but it's asking for trouble, something's highly likely to get confused.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:06:45 UTC 2019 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
7 p.m.
On Sun, 2019-04-14 at 17:12 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
The problem is feeding their router data through my DD-WRT router.
An ethernet port is provided which they claim work but provide no
information for doing so. They sent a "technician" a few days ago and
he knew nothing more about it than I do except he assured me it
should work but did not know how to set up both routers, tried what
he could for an hour and said if you can't make it work and call for
help, tell them to send someone else ...
Seriously? They couldn't do such a simple thing? Such complete
incompetance with a so-called tech.
Unless they've done something goofy with their hardware, it should be
easily doable just as others have said on here (put your router between
their equipment and yours, WAN side of your router facing the service
provider). That's a two-minute job.
It's not the ideal situation, but should work without doing anything
more than cable patching. And things should continue to work within
your LAN the same as it always did.
If you did things like SSH in from the outside world, or accept other
incoming connections, then you will strike problems. Their equipment
would act as a firewall. That's why people say put it into bridge
mode, then it's virtually transparent.
If you wonder whether their ethernet port is working, in itself, just
connect one of your computers directly to it, and check.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:06:45 UTC 2019 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
7:22 p.m.
On 04/14/2019 06:00 PM, Tim via users wrote:
If you did things like SSH in from the outside world, or accept
other
incoming connections, then you will strike problems. Their equipment
would act as a firewall. That's why people say put it into bridge
mode, then it's virtually transparent.
You should be able to tell the router to forward incoming SSH to one IP
address, and set that machine to have a static IP and only get DNS from
DHCP. I know, because I had my home LAN set up that way for over a
decade and it worked like a charm.
8:03 p.m.
Tim:
> If you did things like SSH in from the outside world, or accept
> other incoming connections, then you will strike problems. Their
> equipment would act as a firewall. That's why people say put it
> into bridge mode, then it's virtually transparent.
Joe Zeff:
You should be able to tell the router to forward incoming SSH to one
IP address, and set that machine to have a static IP and only get DNS
from DHCP. I know, because I had my home LAN set up that way for
over a decade and it worked like a charm.
If he's stuck with having to use their modem/router, and it's not good
enough for his purposes and needs to use his own router, as well. Then
he's got two choices for allowing incoming connections (if he even
wants to do that):
1. Put their modem/router in bridge mode, where it acts as a pipe
between ISP and his own router. It won't do anything to traffic going
through, he can control everything on his own router.
2. Daisy chain his own router with theirs, have double NAT, have to
forward things through their router, and forward things through his own
router, as well. That's messy, annoying, and problematic with certain
protocols.
=========
Here, in Australia, many ISPs supply you with their preconfigured
modem/router, and make you pay for it upfront, or amortise it across an
enforced contract period. Quite often, you don't really need their
equipment, but some ISPs won't let you avoid it. Some of them, like my
ISP, bastardise the thing so you only have limited control over it.
And they remotely control the firmware. Ostensibly, that's so they can
keep it up-to-date regarding bugs. But they also remove features that
you might actually want.
I don't beleive Bob's said what particular modem/router he's been
lumbered with, to see if anyone can offer some direct advice.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-957.10.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:06:45 UTC 2019 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
4:51 p.m.
On Sun, 2019-04-14 at 17:12 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
.
I have a new problem with my internet connection which a few others
on
this list may have encountered. They [Viasat] replaced the modem and
antenna in upgrading the system. The new modem has an integral
router
having none of the feature I need to manage data usage, I've already
used more than 80% of my allowance in the first week. I normally use
a
router with DD-WRT installed providing the features I need, showing
the
amount of data used and which devices used it.
Do you have to use their modems? I have been on ATT, charter, and now
spectrum (all same thing just diff business bought them out), and I've
been using my own model for years now, and I don't have to pay a
monthly fee. I just called and gave them my info from the modem and
off I went. It's a stand alone modem and I have a linksys router
behind it.
At one time, I also had a home telephone that used a modem/router setup
as well. I just told them to turn off the WIFI and/or modem part as I
didn't need it, and they only left on what was needed for the phone and
that was it.
Not sure if helps but hopefully gives you an idea,
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
2:59 p.m.
On 04/15/19 17:51, Mike Chambers wrote:
Do you have to use their modems? I have been on ATT, charter, and
now
spectrum (all same thing just diff business bought them out), and I've
been using my own model for years now, and I don't have to pay a
monthly fee. I just called and gave them my info from the modem and
off I went. It's a stand alone modem and I have a linksys router
behind it.
At one time, I also had a home telephone that used a modem/router setup
as well. I just told them to turn off the WIFI and/or modem part as I
didn't need it, and they only left on what was needed for the phone and
that was it.
Not sure if helps but hopefully gives you an idea,
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
.
It looks like I do need theirs according to all the Googling I've done.
The router is integral to the modem, the modem and supplies power to the
k-bans radio equipment at the dish, 12.0 volts, 3.75 amps per the
markings on the bottom, that has to be fed through the coax to the
antenna, it takes a little transmit power to cover 23,000 miles.
According to everything I've found it should work with their modem
feeding mine but I can't seem to get it working with the reworked modem
I am using so I ordered a new one which should be here tomorrow and
intend to try that. I hesitate to reset mine to restore the original
firmware.
In the mean time the system does work well enough to use as it is, I
just don't know what is using all the data, it's already over 100% and
climbing. They may limit the speed depending on the demands on their
system, otherwise I see no difference, but it is worrisome and until now
I've been controlling usage for 13 gears, can't do that today.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
3:01 p.m.
On 4/16/19 12:59 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
According to everything I've found it should work with their
modem
feeding mine but I can't seem to get it working with the reworked modem
I am using so I ordered a new one which should be here tomorrow and
intend to try that. I hesitate to reset mine to restore the original
firmware.
Did you check the IP subnets?
3:14 p.m.
On 04/16/19 16:01, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Did you check the IP subnets?
.
Yes, and in desperation I just changed my router back to 192.168.1.1,
same as isp router, I had it at 192.168.0.1 which seems like it should
be to differentiate them?
Also setting up the NAT is complicated, and taxiing my ability, I have
three units to try rebooting when nothing works, in addition to network
manager, too many places so make an error ...
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
1:42 p.m.
On 04/16/19 16:01, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 4/16/19 12:59 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> According to everything I've found it should work with their modem
> feeding mine but I can't seem to get it working with the reworked
> modem I am using so I ordered a new one which should be here tomorrow
> and intend to try that. I hesitate to reset mine to restore the
> original firmware.
Did you check the IP subnets?
.
Google found a procedure for setting a bridged connection
"https://fedoramagazine.org/build-network-bridge-fedora/" which I am
trying to use. My Ethernet port is designated enps0. I don't want to
lose the existing set up. It occurs to me that perhaps I can call br0,
the bridge connection on the Fedora29 computer, "enp2s1" assuming that's
what the "s" indicates? Or should I just add "BRIDGE=br0" to the
existing /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-enps0 script?
Any help appreciated,
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
8:04 p.m.
On 4/19/19 11:42 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 04/16/19 16:01, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/16/19 12:59 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>> According to everything I've found it should work with their modem
>> feeding mine but I can't seem to get it working with the reworked
>> modem I am using so I ordered a new one which should be here tomorrow
>> and intend to try that. I hesitate to reset mine to restore the
>> original firmware.
>
> Did you check the IP subnets?
.
Google found a procedure for setting a bridged connection
"https://fedoramagazine.org/build-network-bridge-fedora/" which I am
trying to use. My Ethernet port is designated enps0. I don't want to
lose the existing set up. It occurs to me that perhaps I can call br0,
the bridge connection on the Fedora29 computer, "enp2s1" assuming that's
what the "s" indicates? Or should I just add "BRIDGE=br0" to the
existing /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-enps0 script?
That's not what you want. I don't know why you're trying to make a
network bridge on your computer.
8:40 a.m.
On 04/19/19 21:04, Samuel Sieb wrote:
That's not what you want. I don't know why you're trying to make a
network bridge on your computer.
.
Ok, I can accept that based on you greater knowledge, but what's in a
name? I want to connect a wide area network to a local area network but
a network bridge wont work? The procedure for doing it was well written
and quite clear so I thought I would try that.
I guess you are saying that I should use NAT? I will continue googling
for a procedure for doing that,
Thanks,
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
9:19 a.m.
On Sat, 2019-04-20 at 09:40 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Ok, I can accept that based on you greater knowledge, but what's
in
a name? I want to connect a wide area network to a local area network
but a network bridge wont work? The procedure for doing it was well
written and quite clear so I thought I would try that.
I guess you are saying that I should use NAT? I will continue
googling for a procedure for doing that,
Going from prior messages, your current system is thus:
satellite ----> ISP supplied ----> your own -------+-----> the
receiver horrible preferred | rest
modem & router router +----> of
doing NAT also doing NAT | your
+---> LAN
With the ISP-supplied modem router being unwanted and not very useful
to you.
While that kind of networking setup *can* work, it can be a nuisance in
various ways.
If you could put the ISP supplied thingummy into bridge mode, it would
act simply as a modem, giving a bare ethernet output to your own
router. In essence you're bypassing its in-built router section.
However, it doesn't appear to give you the choice.
One possible option could be: Can you buy the same model modem/router
from somewhere else, or a suitable equivalent and swap it over? Your
own (replacement) device would be user-configurable.
I don't think you've told us exactly what device your ISP supplied
(i.e. brand and model), so that anybody could advise you on it. Nor
have you answered queries about what numerical IP addresses are being
used (both with their routing equipment, and your own).
Considering your first post mentions that the replacement lacks the
data management options you need, and you've already prematurely used
up a large portion of your data allowance. It may be worth contacting
your ISP and forthrightly mentioning that the replacement model is
inadequate for your needs, mentioning those two particular problems.
They may have an alternative, or may be able to put it into bridge mode
for you.
10:34 a.m.
On 04/20/19 10:19, Tim via users wrote:
On Sat, 2019-04-20 at 09:40 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Ok, I can accept that based on you greater knowledge, but what's in
> a name? I want to connect a wide area network to a local area network
> but a network bridge wont work? The procedure for doing it was well
> written and quite clear so I thought I would try that.
>
> I guess you are saying that I should use NAT? I will continue
> googling for a procedure for doing that,
Going from prior messages, your current system is thus:
satellite ----> ISP supplied ----> your own -------+-----> the
receiver horrible preferred | rest
modem & router router +----> of
doing NAT also doing NAT | your
+---> LAN
Yes that is
essentially it, the radio "receiver" is actually a
transceiver providing two way communication ...
With the ISP-supplied modem router being unwanted and not very
useful
to you.
While that kind of networking setup *can* work, it can be a nuisance in
various ways.
.
And it does work well enough, would be good enough for a cable system
where usage was not closely regulated but when I exceed 60GB they can
reduce the quality of my connection. I never know what the date rate of
usage is until I bring up their web page, wait for it to update and dump
a bunch of unwarranted stuff to get a usage number that they claim may
take 24 hours to update.
If you could put the ISP supplied thingummy into bridge mode, it
would
act simply as a modem, giving a bare ethernet output to your own
router. In essence you're bypassing its in-built router section.
However, it doesn't appear to give you the choice.
.
I have found nothing in the settings indicating that option is
available. NetworkManager shows two connection options, Ethernet (eno1)
virbr0, I have it running at the eno1 and a fixed ipaddress on this
computer, that works, the other never did where it would like to be
192.168 .122.1. My router does not normally work with that subnet?
One possible option could be: Can you buy the same model
modem/router
from somewhere else, or a suitable equivalent and swap it over? Your
own (replacement) device would be user-configurable.
the same modem-router is available as new it appears on eBay. I assume
it would not have any other features ...
I don't think you've told us exactly what device your ISP
supplied
(i.e. brand and model), so that anybody could advise you on it. Nor
have you answered queries about what numerical IP addresses are being
used (both with their routing equipment, and your own).
.
It is labeled Viasat and model RG1100, the manual is barely adequate,
written in several languages interspersed by paragraph, annoying but I
read through it several times to glean what I could from it.
Considering your first post mentions that the replacement lacks the
data management options you need, and you've already prematurely used
up a large portion of your data allowance. It may be worth contacting
your ISP and forthrightly mentioning that the replacement model is
inadequate for your needs, mentioning those two particular problems.
They may have an alternative, or may be able to put it into bridge mode
for you.
.
I have phoned the ISP numerous times, each call is an adventure, all I
get is gibberish in very hard to understand English. I was married to a
French woman for 45 years ad do not require perfect spoken English but
in too many cases support is a joke in my opinion.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
1:27 p.m.
Is this of any help?
http://wildbluetools.com/content/FS/110/111/I12000_EnableDisableBridgeMod...
1:31 p.m.
On 4/20/19 8:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 04/20/19 10:19, Tim via users wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-04-20 at 09:40 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>> Ok, I can accept that based on you greater knowledge, but what's in
>> a name? I want to connect a wide area network to a local area network
>> but a network bridge wont work? The procedure for doing it was well
>> written and quite clear so I thought I would try that.
>>
>> I guess you are saying that I should use NAT? I will continue
>> googling for a procedure for doing that,
> Going from prior messages, your current system is thus:
>
>
> satellite ----> ISP supplied ----> your own -------+-----> the
> receiver horrible preferred | rest
> modem & router router +----> of
> doing NAT also doing NAT | your
> +---> LAN
<snip/>
It is labeled Viasat and model RG1100, the manual is barely adequate,
I don't know if this will be any help or just more noise but here goes.
I read through the manual and have to say there's not much there. First
thing it recommends is using wired ethernet, if possible, then proceeds
to use the rest of the limited documentation explaining how to configure
wireless (sheesh!)
However, they may have inadvertently left a clue (sacre bleu!).
<manual>
We’ll only be changing settings in the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz sections, so
you can ignore the Advanced Settings drop-down at the bottom for now.
</manual>
Are these advanced settings for wifi only? You'll have to check that
yourself. There is a chance that is where you'll find things such as
"pass through" or "bridged". If one of those is available that is
what
you are looking for. When in that mode the modem/router doesn't get an
IP but instead the mac addresses are rewritten (NAT'd) so as to appear
to be a simple wire with raw data on its output. YOUR router receives
the IP addresses originally destined for the modem/router.
It's hard to imagine any front line modem/router not offering pass-thru
but we, mere mortals, don't get to make that choice.
Good luck!
Mike Wright
ps. Ben Mohilef just posted the link to the advanced tab. That is what
you want.
2:54 p.m.
On 4/20/19 8:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I have found nothing in the settings indicating that option is
available. NetworkManager shows two connection options, Ethernet (eno1)
virbr0, I have it running at the eno1 and a fixed ipaddress on this
computer, that works, the other never did where it would like to be
192.168 .122.1. My router does not normally work with that subnet?
I really don't understand what you are doing. It sounds like you are
trying to configure something on your computer to make it work. This
has nothing to do with your computer.
Is this device you have shaped like a triangular prism?
According to the little information I've been able to find, the viasat
gateway should be at 192.168.100.1. But it's not clear, so what IP
address does your computer get when it's connected to the gateway using
either ethernet or wireless? Assuming you can get to the web interface
of the gateway, the username should be "admin", the password is either
"admin" or is written on the gateway somewhere. You should be able to
disable the wifi if you want and there might be a way to switch it to
bridged mode, either in the router settings or the modem settings. Be
careful, if you do switch it to bridged mode, you might not be able
access it again without completely resetting it.
In any case, bridged or not, you should be able to use your own router.
Unless you've done some unusual configuration of your router, this is
how it should be connected. Connect an ethernet cable from your
router's WAN port to one of the gateway's LAN ports. I would recommend
using port 1. Now, connect your other network devices to your router's
LAN ports or wifi. Check the IP address of your computer now. Go to
your router's web interface and make sure that the WAN interface is set
to use DHCP and check what it's IP address is.
6:38 p.m.
On 04/20/19 15:54, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Is this device you have shaped like a triangular prism?
According to the little information I've been able to find, the viasat
gateway should be at 192.168.100.1. But it's not clear, so what IP
address does your computer get when it's connected to the gateway
using either ethernet or wireless? Assuming you can get to the web
interface of the gateway, the username should be "admin", the password
is either "admin" or is written on the gateway somewhere. You should
be able to disable the wifi if you want and there might be a way to
switch it to bridged mode, either in the router settings or the modem
settings. Be careful, if you do switch it to bridged mode, you might
not be able access it again without completely resetting it.
In any case, bridged or not, you should be able to use your own
router. Unless you've done some unusual configuration of your router,
this is how it should be connected. Connect an ethernet cable from
your router's WAN port to one of the gateway's LAN ports. I would
recommend using port 1. Now, connect your other network devices to
your router's LAN ports or wifi. Check the IP address of your
computer now. Go to your router's web interface and make sure that
the WAN interface is set to use DHCP and check what it's IP address is.
. I
would answer yes to all those questions ... On this computer NM
shows 192.168.122.1 initially, the other one I have been using ...124.1
but this computer is normally fixed at 192.168.1.47 and so far the only
I can get a path through my router is to WAN plug into one of the LAN
jacks, the router then acts like a switch or a straight through Ethernet
adapter which also works. IO have never been able to get a signal
through my router from the WAN jack to the LAN jacks when connected to
the Viasat "modem." It did work with their old modem before the system
upgrade that introduced the new modem and dish, for thirteen years
before that the system worked with whatever equipment they provided and
several different routers, almost always modified to run DD-WRT or the
Tomato-USB version of DD-WRT which I prefer and using presently.
I began to suspect that my router is not configured correctly for NAT
and have been messing with that, it has some settings I have never
needed to use before but I think I need to adjust them, Hope to have
time to work on that tomorrow.
And yes, the wifi password and router password are among the things on
the bottom label and I have been using them to access the Viasat modem
as necessary.
I hope that gets all the things you asked and I appreciate the assistance.
_
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
9:06 p.m.
On 4/20/19 4:38 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
. I would answer yes to all those questions ... On this computer NM
shows 192.168.122.1 initially, the other one I have been using ...124.1
If this is the address you are seeing on your computer, then you're
probably looking at virbr0 which is the virtual bridge interface used by
libvirtd for virtual machines. You can ignore it and if you aren't
using virtual machines, do "systemctl disable --now libvirtd".
but this computer is normally fixed at 192.168.1.47 and so far the
only
I can get a path through my router is to WAN plug into one of the LAN
jacks, the router then acts like a switch or a straight through Ethernet
Isn't that what I was saying you should do? The WAN plug on your ddwrt
router should be plugged into one of the LAN jacks on the viasat modem.
Or are you saying something else?
I began to suspect that my router is not configured correctly for NAT
and have been messing with that, it has some settings I have never
needed to use before but I think I need to adjust them, Hope to have
time to work on that tomorrow.
It must be setup correctly for NAT or it wouldn't have worked before.
What address does your computer have and what address does the WAN
interface on the ddwrt router get when it's plugged in?
10:10 a.m.
On 04/20/19 22:06, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On this computer NM shows 192.168.122.1 initially, the other one
I
> have been using ...124.1
If this is the address you are seeing on your computer, then you're
probably looking at virbr0 which is the virtual bridge interface used
by libvirtd for virtual machines. You can ignore it and if you aren't
using virtual machines, do "systemctl disable --now libvirtd".
.
No, the 122.1 and 124.1 addresses have not worked, when that happens I
disable/enable in NM and it comes up with the fixed address which always
works as long as I have the WAN cable plugged into the LAN side of the
router where it only serves as an ethernet switch. This computer is
fixed at 192.168.1.47, my router at 192.168.1.1 and the Viasat router
uses 192.168.1.1 also. I had considered changing the LAN subnet
192.168.2.1 and actually tried that but reset them to 192.168.1.1 where
they are now, both routers in the same range if that matters to the
actual operation ... I have cameras and another ASUS router set up in
the barn and all that stuff will need to be reconfigured if I change the
address range.
I am never certain how I handled address assignment on some of those
things, DHCP static or simply fixed. Fixing them for changes probably
means bringing them all in here to be rest and then re-installing and
pointing them again ...
but this computer is normally fixed at 192.168.1.47 and so far the
only way I can get a path through my router is to plug the WAN plug
into one of the LAN jacks, the router then acts like a switch or a
straight through Ethernet
Isn't that what I was saying you should do? The WAN plug on your
ddwrt router should be plugged into one of the LAN jacks on the viasat
modem. Or are you saying something else?
> I began to suspect that my router is not configured correctly for NAT
> and have been messing with that, it has some settings I have never
> needed to use before but I think I need to adjust them, Hope to have
> time to work on that tomorrow.
It must be setup correctly for NAT or it wouldn't have worked before.
What address does your computer have [192.168.1.47] and what address
does the WAN interface on the ddwrt router get when it's plugged in?
[192.168.1.1]
.
I am still looking for a detailed user instruction, with a few examples,
for the dd-wrt Tomato USB router. Such an instruction may not exist,
dunno yet.
_______________________________________________
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
11:13 a.m.
On Sun, 2019-04-21 at 11:10 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I have cameras and another ASUS router set up in the barn and all
that stuff will need to be reconfigured if I change the
address range.
Third option, then: Put a switch after the ISP's modem/router, and
plug everything that you trust not to eat up your download bandwidth
through that.
Connect your own router (the right way around) to manage the few things
that you know will waste your download-bandwidth &/or data-allowance.
As I mentioned in a prior mail, if you have two routers with their LAN
side of themselves connected together, you're going to strike problems
if they both are running DHCP servers. The DHCP servers will fight
with each other, and you'll end up with clients changing their IPs
unexpectedly.
I am never certain how I handled address assignment on some of those
things, DHCP static or simply fixed. Fixing them for changes
probably means bringing them all in here to be rest and then re-
installing and pointing them again ...
If you fixed addresses using a DHCP server, then look at that DHCP
server's configuration. It'll list who and what. And anything else
(that's not on its list) with a fixed IP will have been configured on
the individual devices, themselves.
Once you go beyond about four devices in the same room, having to
manually configure each device becomes a real pain. It's almost
inevitable that you'll strike something that requires a network
reassignment, and have to go through all the work that entails to get
everything working again (rejigging network addresses, host files,
firewalls, various servers, etc).
I've faced that twice: Once with a client device that could only ever
work on a 192.168.1.x network, because it was stupidly hardcoded that
way. Then again with an ISP supplied modem/router that was set up to
run with a 10.0.0.x network.
(Fortunately, I could reconfigure the modem/router, but it's factory
default was 10.0.0.x, and ISP fault-finding begins with a factory reset
instead of actual diagnosis. Which requires reconfiguring a client PC
to regain control of the modem/router, so the LAN could cooperate with
the other stupidly hardcoded device.)
DHCP is designed for these situations: Central control over address
allocations. With an associated DNS server to answer all the name
queries. Ultimately, far less mucking around.
12:19 p.m.
On 4/21/19 8:10 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
my router at 192.168.1.1 and the Viasat router uses 192.168.1.1 also.
Hi Bob,
Therein lies your problem. You can continue to use your original setup
if you configure your Viasat router correctly. There is no reason to
keep beating your head against a wall [ unless you enjoy that sort of
thing ;D ]
Log in to your Viasat router, go to Advanced settings, and set the
Viasat router to BRIDGED mode. That will turn off the Viasat's IP and
your conflicts will dissipate.
This has been advised already. For a more descriptive answer look for
the response from Ben Mohilef where he includes the link to your Viaset
router's advanced settings. Basically it will say the same thing. Put
your Viasat modem/router into BRIDGED mode. That's all you have to do.
12:24 p.m.
On 4/21/19 10:19 AM, Mike Wright wrote:
On 4/21/19 8:10 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> my router at 192.168.1.1 and the Viasat router uses 192.168.1.1 also.
Hi Bob,
Therein lies your problem. You can continue to use your original setup
if you configure your Viasat router correctly. There is no reason to
keep beating your head against a wall [ unless you enjoy that sort of
thing ;D ]
Log in to your Viasat router, go to Advanced settings, and set the
Viasat router to BRIDGED mode. That will turn off the Viasat's IP and
your conflicts will dissipate.
This has been advised already. For a more descriptive answer look for
the response from Ben Mohilef where he includes the link to your Viaset
router's advanced settings. Basically it will say the same thing. Put
your Viasat modem/router into BRIDGED mode. That's all you have to do.
PS. This information regarding bridged mode also applies to terrestrial
modem/routers. If you have (e.g.) a DSL modem/router set it into
bridged mode (pass-thru) and YOUR router/switch to use DHCP and the far
gateway will provide you with an address/mask, etc.
12:56 p.m.
On 04/21/19 13:19, Mike Wright wrote:
Basically it will say the same thing. Put your Viasat modem/router
into BRIDGED mode. That's all you have to do.
.
.
Mike, I would be happy to do that but I have gone over the Viasat router
configuration menus and found nothing to select Bridged mode. I have
done that with other routers, like the other ASUS router in the barn,
which handles the camera link, from where I used it's original
software, just selected Clint Bridge as best I can remember, that was a
couple of years ago but I was pleased to see that option offered which
made it memorable ...
I have been reading all these messages as they come in and appreciate
them greatly, Tim sent a well written message earlier that must have
taken significant effort, I just can't respond to them all, but I do
consider and try all the suggestions.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
3:46 p.m.
On 4/21/19 10:56 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 04/21/19 13:19, Mike Wright wrote:
> Basically it will say the same thing. Put your Viasat modem/router
> into BRIDGED mode. That's all you have to do.
.
Mike, I would be happy to do that but I have gone over the Viasat router
configuration menus and found nothing to select Bridged mode. I have
done that with other routers, like the other ASUS router in the barn,
which handles the camera link, from where I used it's original
software, just selected Clint Bridge as best I can remember, that was a
couple of years ago but I was pleased to see that option offered which
made it memorable ...
That is a different "bridged mode" than what we've been referring to.
If you can't set the modem to bridged mode, then you need to change it's
IP subnet to something other than 192.168.1.0/24. If the modem and your
router are both using that subnet, then your router will be confused and
it won't be able to route any traffic.
5:24 p.m.
On 04/21/19 16:46, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> emorable ...
That is a different "bridged mode" than what we've been referring to.
If you can't set the modem to bridged mode, then you need to change
it's IP subnet to something other than 192.168.1.0/24. If the modem
and your router are both using that subnet, then your router will be
confused and it won't be able to route any traffic.
_______________________________________________
Well with Mike's urging I Googled some more and tried another Viasat
modem setup item "Network Mode" which did shut down the wifi router.
Then for the first time I could get some kind of path through my
ASUS/Tomato router. That permitted me to see my iPad connected through
my router. That is encouraging however this desktop with it's wired
connection?
It now occurs to me that my router is still set with different DHCP
static addresses and I [probably need to set NM for that address. I have
since done a reset on the viasat router which will add a confusion
factor, but I notice that the Viasat modem wifi LED has not come back
on? I've run out of time now but will get back to this later, there's a
glimmer of hope ...
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
7:17 p.m.
I also endorse using your own equipment although some equipment might
be a little bit of an adventure.
I've posted several times over the past 8 months or so about the
equipment I've been using on Cox and Spectrum, I don't even have to
tell the ISP what equipment I'm using... I just tell them I'm using my
own equipment on the Service Order, then hook up my own equipment. As
long as the equipment id compatible with their system, everything
happens more or less automaticatlly… The equipment is discovered,
recogniziaed, identified and then authorized firmware updates are
installed automatically (by the ISP). If all goes well, somewhere
between 20 t0 90 minutes after initial hookup, the system should be
working.
You need to identify your equipment if you want help with your
different options. Nowadays, I think most SOHO residential gateways
come with web-based Administration. You may need to use a wired
connection instead of a wireless.
Tony
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 3:24 PM Bob Goodwin <bobgoodwin(a)fastmail.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/21/19 16:46, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >> emorable ...
> >
> > That is a different "bridged mode" than what we've been referring
to.
> >
> > If you can't set the modem to bridged mode, then you need to change
> > it's IP subnet to something other than 192.168.1.0/24. If the modem
> > and your router are both using that subnet, then your router will be
> > confused and it won't be able to route any traffic.
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> Well with Mike's urging I Googled some more and tried another Viasat
> modem setup item "Network Mode" which did shut down the wifi router.
> Then for the first time I could get some kind of path through my
> ASUS/Tomato router. That permitted me to see my iPad connected through
> my router. That is encouraging however this desktop with it's wired
> connection?
>
> It now occurs to me that my router is still set with different DHCP
> static addresses and I [probably need to set NM for that address. I have
> since done a reset on the viasat router which will add a confusion
> factor, but I notice that the Viasat modem wifi LED has not come back
> on? I've run out of time now but will get back to this later, there's a
> glimmer of hope ...
>
> --
>
> Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
> http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
> box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
5:20 a.m.
On 05/07/19 20:17, Tony Su wrote:
I've posted several times over the past 8 months or so about the
equipment I've been using on Cox and Spectrum, I don't even have to
tell the ISP what equipment I'm using... I just tell them I'm using my
own equipment on the Service Order, then hook up my own equipment. As
long as the equipment id compatible with their system, everything
happens more or less automaticatlly… The equipment is discovered,
recogniziaed, identified and then authorized firmware updates are
installed automatically (by the ISP). If all goes well, somewhere
between 20 t0 90 minutes after initial hookup, the system should be
working.
You need to identify your equipment if you want help with your
different options. Nowadays, I think most SOHO residential gateways
come with web-based Administration. You may need to use a wired
connection instead of a wireless.
.
Everything I have read says Viasat's equipment must be used. Twenty
years ago I might have experimented anyway but that's not something I
can do now. The main difference I see is that their combination modem
and router [Viasat RG1100] provides power to operate the radio equipment
at the antenna, power over coax, 48 vdc I think it said. It also
contains a voip adapter for the telephone, before this "system upgrade"
two months ago that was separate.
Until that time, for thirteen years, all I needed was their modem and
the rest I provided. I will attach a sketch of what I have to work with
now. I did determine that their router/modem could be put into a bridged
mode but I could not get an internet connection with it and after a
visit from their "technician" it was decided I could not use that mode?
Presently it appears that the best solution is to NAT the WAN data to my
router. I was experimenting with that approach yesterday, but I am still
uncertain about the DD-WRT router configuration, still trying to come up
with the right questions to ask for help here. The
viasat equipment provides wifi that others have been using with poor
results on their iPhones, etc, I am using one of the wired ethernet
ports leaving a second port for connection to a separate router.
I want to turn down their wifi signal and use only my wifi router which
will still leave their phone adapter functioning. I hope that explains
things well enough to be understood. What I need most now is a good
instruction for setting up the NAT stuff with my LAN ip changed to
192.168.0.xx which I think will make it easier for me to follow.
Any further suggestions appreciated,
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
5:29 a.m.
On 5/9/19 6:20 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Any further suggestions appreciated
Wasn't it pointed out quite some time ago that 2 devices can't have the same IP
address?
You show your Viasat Modem and ASUS Router as both having 192.168.1.1.
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
5:43 a.m.
On 05/09/19 06:29, Ed Greshko wrote:
Wasn't it pointed out quite some time ago that 2 devices
can't have the same IP address?
You show your Viasat Modem and ASUS Router as both having 192.168.1.1.
.
Yes and understood. The diagram simply shows what I have to start with,
the new router/modem plus the existing main components. There is a lot
of peripheral stuff not shown but I was asked about what I have if I
understood the question.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
6:23 a.m.
On 5/9/19 6:43 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 05/09/19 06:29, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Wasn't it pointed out quite some time ago that 2 devices can't have the same
IP address?
>
> You show your Viasat Modem and ASUS Router as both having 192.168.1.1.
.
Yes and understood. The diagram simply shows what I have to start with, the new
router/modem plus the existing main components. There is a lot of peripheral stuff not
shown but I was asked about what I have if I understood the question.
So, your network kinda looks like the attached. (no switch in my diagram)
Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to the Radio Equipment,
does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is? And the second interface connects
to
the switch and is 192.168.1.1.
You're saying the Modem and the ASUS are connected to the Switch. And you have other
devices connected to the switch. Those other devices would have IP addresses of
192.168.1.X. Yes?
If I were trying to get this working I would make sure the Interface of the ASUS was
something like 192.168.1.5 and I would run the ASUS in Bridge mode.
This way everything on your network could have IP addresses of 192.168.1.X
There should be no reason to use NAT in the ASUS.
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
1:01 p.m.
On 5/9/19 4:23 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
If I were trying to get this working I would make sure the Interface
of the ASUS was
something like 192.168.1.5 and I would run the ASUS in Bridge mode.
This way everything on your network could have IP addresses of 192.168.1.X
There should be no reason to use NAT in the ASUS.
Except that from his original email, he wants all traffic to go through
the ASUS so that he can do traffic control. He is getting too much
traffic over the internet link now that he doesn't have that.
6:13 p.m.
On 5/10/19 2:01 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 5/9/19 4:23 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> If I were trying to get this working I would make sure the Interface of the ASUS was
> something like 192.168.1.5 and I would run the ASUS in Bridge mode.
>
> This way everything on your network could have IP addresses of 192.168.1.X
>
> There should be no reason to use NAT in the ASUS.
Except that from his original email, he wants all traffic to go through the ASUS so that
he can do traffic control. He is getting too much traffic over the internet link now
that he doesn't have that.
Oh, right. Forgot all about that.
Double-NAT seems like it could be a solution. But I've run into issues with that. It
was
years ago so I can't recall the details.
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
7:28 p.m.
On 10May2019 07:13, Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 5/10/19 2:01 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 5/9/19 4:23 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> If I were trying to get this working I would make sure the Interface of the ASUS
was
>> something like 192.168.1.5 and I would run the ASUS in Bridge mode.
>>
>> This way everything on your network could have IP addresses of 192.168.1.X
>>
>> There should be no reason to use NAT in the ASUS.
>
> Except that from his original email, he wants all traffic to go through the ASUS so
that
> he can do traffic control. He is getting too much traffic over the internet link
now
> that he doesn't have that.
Oh, right. Forgot all about that.
Double-NAT seems like it could be a solution. But I've run into issues with that. It
was
years ago so I can't recall the details.
Double NAT has seemed to work ok for us. It would be interesting to hear
of counter examples. I'm talking only about outbound connections here,
BTW.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au>
7:47 p.m.
On 5/10/19 8:28 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 10May2019 07:13, Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/19 2:01 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 5/9/19 4:23 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> If I were trying to get this working I would make sure the Interface of the
ASUS was
>>> something like 192.168.1.5 and I would run the ASUS in Bridge mode.
>>>
>>> This way everything on your network could have IP addresses of 192.168.1.X
>>>
>>> There should be no reason to use NAT in the ASUS.
>>
>> Except that from his original email, he wants all traffic to go through the ASUS
so that
>> he can do traffic control. He is getting too much traffic over the internet link
now
>> that he doesn't have that.
>
> Oh, right. Forgot all about that.
>
> Double-NAT seems like it could be a solution. But I've run into issues with
that. It was
> years ago so I can't recall the details.
Double NAT has seemed to work ok for us. It would be interesting to hear of counter
examples. I'm talking only about outbound connections here, BTW.
Right, outbound was fine. I'm pretty sure it was issues where port-forwarding or
UPnP
services were involved.
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
2:14 p.m.
On 05/09/19 07:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
So, your network kinda looks like the attached. (no switch in my
diagram)
Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to the Radio Equipment,
does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is? And the second interface connects
to
the switch and is 192.168.1.1.
.
Yeah, it "kinda" looks like that in some way ...
The Viasat unit has the line that goes to the microwave equipment at the
dish which I assume is something like a one GHz intermediate frequency
signal modulated with the date. I have no access to that, it does have
two ethernet ports they state are identical and apparently can be used
interchangeably, at this moment one is connected to the ethernet switch
and feeding this computer assigned the ip 192.168.1.47 by the viasat
router dhcp server. If I put the viasat unit into it's bridged mode I
would expect output as 182.168.1.1 but not sure of that.
However they insist that bridged mode can not be used, I think because
it kills the voip interface which is integral to the viasat router/modem.
You're saying the Modem and the ASUS are connected to the Switch. And you have
other
devices connected to the switch. Those other devices would have IP addresses of
192.168.1.X. Yes?
.
Yes 192.168.1.X and I need all the data to pass through my router, to
the switch. The router provides extensive logging information that I use
as well as being the dhcp server for everything not assigned a fixed ip
and static addresses for the regular users as well as being the wifi
access point. I could then turn off the viasat wifi or just leave it run
and not use it if I put my router between theirs and my LAN and all the
users on a different subset, arbitrarily tried 192.168.0.x. That leaves
the voip phone working. If I can make NAT work ...
If I were trying to get this working I would make sure the Interface of the ASUS was
something like 192.168.1.5 and I would run the ASUS in Bridge mode.
.
It's not clear to me how this could work? I have an identical ASUS
router in the barn set up as a bridge and it seems useless for anything
else. I know that I can't access it's browser set up function without
bringing it in here and plugging a cat5 cable into it. It uses the
software provide by ASUS in it's "client Bridge" mode, I tried it and it
did what I needed and left it at that, it has been trouble free,
effectively looks like another wired ethernet connection at this end,
provides video and voice ...
This way everything on your network could have IP addresses of 192.168.1.X
There should be no reason to use NAT in the ASUS.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
7:54 p.m.
On 5/9/19 12:14 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
It's not clear to me how this could work? I have an identical
ASUS
router in the barn set up as a bridge and it seems useless for anything
else. I know that I can't access it's browser set up function without
bringing it in here and plugging a cat5 cable into it. It uses the
software provide by ASUS in it's "client Bridge" mode, I tried it and it
did what I needed and left it at that, it has been trouble free,
effectively looks like another wired ethernet connection at this end,
provides video and voice ...
You probably have to manually assign an IP address on its LAN interface.
Unless you're using something like openwrt or ddwrt, most routers
don't support DHCP on the LAN interface.
12:25 a.m.
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 15:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
If I put the viasat unit into it's bridged mode I would expect
output
as 182.168.1.1 but not sure of that.
If you put it into bridge mode, it'll have the public IP that the ISP
assigns to you (previously that IP would have just been internal, now
it'd be on the outside network connection). As such, it's only
suitable for connecting to one device (either one computer, or a
router). Because most ISPs will only assign one IP to each customer.
If ISPs would assign multiple IPs to customers, then we could forgo
routers. However, having a router gives you a fair bit of isolation
from outside probing. Especially if it has a firewall. NB: A router
without actually having a firewall feature is not a firewall.
However they insist that bridged mode can not be used, I think
because it kills the voip interface which is integral to the viasat
router/modem.
If VOIP is in-built to the box, I would believe that reason. Do you
need VOIP?
If I can make NAT work ...
I don't understand why this is so hard. Most routers do NAT from their
default condition. You have to go out of your way to stop them doing
it.
For your situation (NAT behind NAT), all you have to do is configure
its LAN side to use a different IP range than the WAN side (like my
prior mails have discussed). It'll control the equipment on your LAN
side using DHCP, and you'll have to manually change any equipment not
using DHCP.
I have an identical ASUS router in the barn set up as a bridge and
it
seems useless for anything else. I know that I can't access it's
browser set up function without bringing it in here and plugging a
cat5 cable into it.
Most routers will only let you configure them from something on its LAN
side, they'll block WAN access to its configurator (unless you enable
some remote access type of setting). Likewise, many will disable
configuration control from the WiFi, unless you specifically set an
option to allow it.
I'm not sure why you'd want to use it as a router, in that situation,
anyway. Surely you only need to act as a switch, there?
4:34 a.m.
On 5/10/19 1:25 PM, Tim via users wrote:
Because most ISPs will only assign one IP to each customer.
My ISP gave me 4722366482869645213696 IP addresses.
OK, they are IPv6 addresses. :-) :-)
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
8:36 a.m.
Tim:
> Because most ISPs will only assign one IP to each customer.
Ed Greshko:
My ISP gave me 4722366482869645213696 IP addresses.
OK, they are IPv6 addresses. :-) :-)
Aussie ISPs are still dragging their feet on supporting IPv6. They
should have been getting it ready MANY years ago.
4:05 a.m.
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 15:14 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 05/09/19 07:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
> So, your network kinda looks like the attached. (no switch in my
> diagram)
>
> Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to
> the Radio Equipment,
> does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is? And the
> second interface connects to
> the switch and is 192.168.1.1.
.
Yeah, it "kinda" looks like that in some way ...
The Viasat unit has the line that goes to the microwave equipment at
the
dish which I assume is something like a one GHz intermediate
frequency
signal modulated with the date. I have no access to that, it does
have
two ethernet ports they state are identical and apparently can be
used
interchangeably, at this moment one is connected to the ethernet
switch
and feeding this computer assigned the ip 192.168.1.47 by the
viasat
router dhcp server. If I put the viasat unit into it's bridged mode
I
would expect output as 182.168.1.1 but not sure of that.
However they insist that bridged mode can not be used, I think
because
it kills the voip interface which is integral to the viasat
router/modem.
> You're saying the Modem and the ASUS are connected to the Switch.
> And you have other
> devices connected to the switch. Those other devices would have IP
> addresses of
> 192.168.1.X. Yes?
Can you modify settings in the modem? it would be best if you could
router 192/168.0.0/24 (255.255.0.0) to the router. Don't use NAT on the
router in that case, but let it do DHCP on the LAN with a different IP-
range 192.168.x where x is not 1. Port forwardings are then set on the
Viasat to the internal addresses (192.168.x.y). So you use the router
for routing and firewall, but not NAT. This is the cleanest solution.
LAN stations van still access the Viasat through its 192.168 address if
the router is properly configured and its firewall allows the traffic
If the Viasat can do this it will work wonderfully...
3:49 p.m.
On 05/09/19 07:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to
the Radio Equipment,
does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is?
.
No, I've decided that I probably don't know what that address is. I set
out assuming it was 192.168.1.1 like it was on the modems they provided
before this one. It is not provided in anything I have read. How can I
determine this?
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
4:16 p.m.
On 5/12/19 4:49 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 05/09/19 07:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to the Radio
Equipment,
> does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is?
.
No, I've decided that I probably don't know what that address is. I set out
assuming it
was 192.168.1.1 like it was on the modems they provided before this one. It is not
provided in anything I have read. How can I determine this?
Really early in my AM. No coffee and brain not yet active.
What info do you get when you visit this site? http://wanip.info/
I'd have to fire up a Virtual Machine without IPv6 to see if it would be valuable.
So,
I've not tested it.
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
4:26 p.m.
On 05/11/19 17:16, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 5/12/19 4:49 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>
> On 05/09/19 07:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to the Radio
Equipment,
>> does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is?
> .
> No, I've decided that I probably don't know what that address is. I set out
assuming it
> was 192.168.1.1 like it was on the modems they provided before this one. It is not
> provided in anything I have read. How can I determine this?
>
Really early in my AM. No coffee and brain not yet active.
What info do you get when you visit this site? http://wanip.info/
I'd have to fire up a Virtual Machine without IPv6 to see if it would be valuable.
So,
I've not tested it.
Your WanIP address is:
184.62.232.174
Interesting info we could get from the WanIP address:
Host address: 184.62.232.174 - 184-62-232-174.cust.exede.net
Country: US US United States
ISP: ViaSat,Inc.
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
5:31 p.m.
On 5/12/19 5:26 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 05/11/19 17:16, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 5/12/19 4:49 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/19 07:23, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> Your Viasat Modem has 2 interfaces. The interface that connects to the Radio
Equipment,
>>> does it have an IP address? Do you know what it is?
>> .
>> No, I've decided that I probably don't know what that address is. I set
out assuming it
>> was 192.168.1.1 like it was on the modems they provided before this one. It is
not
>> provided in anything I have read. How can I determine this?
>>
> Really early in my AM. No coffee and brain not yet active.
>
> What info do you get when you visit this site? http://wanip.info/
>
> I'd have to fire up a Virtual Machine without IPv6 to see if it would be
valuable. So,
> I've not tested it.
>
Your WanIP address is:
184.62.232.174
Interesting info we could get from the WanIP address:
Host address: 184.62.232.174 - 184-62-232-174.cust.exede.net
Country: US US United States
ISP: ViaSat,Inc
That "probably" is it. But just for completeness, what do you get for...
sudo tcptraceroute 118.214.253.200
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
5:40 p.m.
On 05/11/19 18:31, Ed Greshko wrote:
That "probably" is it. But just for completeness, what do
you get for...
sudo tcptraceroute 118.214.253.200
.
Supper time here, gotta go ...
[bobg@bobg bobg]$ sudo tcptraceroute 118.214.253.200
[sudo] password for bobg:
Running:
traceroute -T -O info 118.214.253.200
traceroute to 118.214.253.200 (118.214.253.200), 30 hops max, 60 byte
packets
1 router.viasatmodem.com (192.168.1.1) 0.359 ms 0.384 ms 0.389 ms
2 10.143.254.76 (10.143.254.76) 599.559 ms 646.856 ms 686.704 ms
3 * * *
4 192.168.142.2 (192.168.142.2) 926.663 ms 966.356 ms 1046.071 ms
5 * * *
6 10.92.236.2 (10.92.236.2) 1253.100 ms 1301.182 ms 10.92.236.3
(10.92.236.3) 1382.046 ms
7 10.95.252.214 (10.95.252.214) 1422.125 ms 1041.187 ms 1087.963 ms
8 64.125.54.233.available.above.net (64.125.54.233) 1167.983 ms
1204.310 ms 1248.333 ms
9 ae9.mes2.iad47.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.68) 1385.278 ms
ae8.mes1.iad47.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.36) 1410.444 ms
ae9.mes2.iad47.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.68) 1465.572 ms
10 ae3.mcs2.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.242) 1488.165 ms
ae4.mcs1.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.240) 1524.069 ms
ae3.mcs2.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.242) 563.137 ms
11 ae1.cs1.dca2.us.eth.zayo.com (64.125.29.230) 656.584 ms
ae1.cs2.dca2.us.eth.zayo.com (64.125.29.248) 652.758 ms 679.599 ms
12 * ae3.cs2.iah1.us.eth.zayo.com (64.125.29.45) 656.116 ms 673.478 ms
13 ae5.cs2.dfw2.us.eth.zayo.com (64.125.28.103) 1028.111 ms 1109.894
ms ae5.cs1.dfw2.us.eth.zayo.com (64.125.28.99) 1241.255 ms
14 ae3.cs1.lax112.us.eth.zayo.com (64.125.29.53) 1277.664 ms 1179.327
ms ae12.cs2.lax112.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.26.183) 1113.152 ms
15 ae13.mpr1.lax12.us.zip.zayo.com (64.125.28.231) 1079.813 ms 922.351
ms 926.115 ms
16 * * *
17 r4001-s2.tp.hinet.net (211.72.108.102) 836.773 ms 839.774 ms
910.718 ms
18 r4101-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.30.250) 1397.073 ms
r4101-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.12.2) 1436.973 ms r4101-s2.tp.hinet.net
(220.128.30.250) 1607.628 ms
19 tpdb-3021.hinet.net (220.128.7.114) 802.242 ms tpdt-3022.hinet.net
(220.128.7.118) 802.195 ms tpdt-3022.hinet.net (220.128.14.98) 802.138 ms
20 220-128-8-109.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.8.109) 860.202 ms
tylc-3032.hinet.net (220.128.9.33) 842.206 ms tyfo-3031.hinet.net
(220.128.8.53) 842.230 ms
21 220-128-8-245.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220.128.8.245) 860.040 ms
tyfo-3305.hinet.net (220.128.12.13) 799.618 ms tyfo-3305.hinet.net
(220.128.8.157) 799.502 ms
22 * * *
23 a118-214-253-200.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com
(118.214.253.200) <syn,ack> 840.289 ms 844.589 ms 881.181 ms
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
6:59 p.m.
On 5/12/19 6:40 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 05/11/19 18:31, Ed Greshko wrote:
> That "probably" is it. But just for completeness, what do you get for...
>
> sudo tcptraceroute 118.214.253.200
.
Supper time here, gotta go ...
[bobg@bobg bobg]$ sudo tcptraceroute 118.214.253.200
[sudo] password for bobg:
Running:
traceroute -T -O info 118.214.253.200
traceroute to 118.214.253.200 (118.214.253.200), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 router.viasatmodem.com (192.168.1.1) 0.359 ms 0.384 ms 0.389 ms
2 10.143.254.76 (10.143.254.76) 599.559 ms 646.856 ms 686.704 ms
3 * * *
4 192.168.142.2 (192.168.142.2) 926.663 ms 966.356 ms 1046.071 ms
5 * * *
OK, that is what I thought.
Your router's IP address on the radio link side isn't 184.62.232.174.
It is something similar to 10.143.254.76
They are using private IP's in their internal network and translating 184.62.232.174
into
something else.
--
Right: I dislike the default color scheme Wrong: What idiot picked the default color
scheme
7:55 p.m.
On 5/11/19 3:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
[bobg@bobg bobg]$ sudo tcptraceroute 118.214.253.200
[sudo] password for bobg:
Running:
traceroute -T -O info 118.214.253.200
traceroute to 118.214.253.200 (118.214.253.200), 30 hops max, 60 byte
packets
1 router.viasatmodem.com (192.168.1.1) 0.359 ms 0.384 ms 0.389 ms
Back to the original question, have you tried setting your ddwrt router
to use the 192.168.0.0/24 subnet and plugged its WAN port into the
visasat modem?
7:54 a.m.
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 07:21, Bob Goodwin <bobgoodwin(a)fastmail.us> wrote:
On 05/07/19 20:17, Tony Su wrote:
> I've posted several times over the past 8 months or so about the
> equipment I've been using on Cox and Spectrum, I don't even have to
> tell the ISP what equipment I'm using... I just tell them I'm using my
> own equipment on the Service Order, then hook up my own equipment. As
> long as the equipment id compatible with their system, everything
> happens more or less automaticatlly… The equipment is discovered,
> recogniziaed, identified and then authorized firmware updates are
> installed automatically (by the ISP). If all goes well, somewhere
> between 20 t0 90 minutes after initial hookup, the system should be
> working.
>
> You need to identify your equipment if you want help with your
> different options. Nowadays, I think most SOHO residential gateways
> come with web-based Administration. You may need to use a wired
> connection instead of a wireless.
.
Everything I have read says Viasat's equipment must be used. Twenty
years ago I might have experimented anyway but that's not something I
can do now. The main difference I see is that their combination modem
and router [Viasat RG1100] provides power to operate the radio equipment
at the antenna, power over coax, 48 vdc I think it said. It also
contains a voip adapter for the telephone, before this "system upgrade"
two months ago that was separate.
Until that time, for thirteen years, all I needed was their modem and
the rest I provided. I will attach a sketch of what I have to work with
now. I did determine that their router/modem could be put into a bridged
mode but I could not get an internet connection with it and after a
visit from their "technician" it was decided I could not use that mode?
Presently it appears that the best solution is to NAT the WAN data to my
router. I was experimenting with that approach yesterday, but I am still
uncertain about the DD-WRT router configuration, still trying to come up
with the right questions to ask for help here. The
viasat equipment provides wifi that others have been using with poor
results on their iPhones, etc, I am using one of the wired ethernet
ports leaving a second port for connection to a separate router.
I want to turn down their wifi signal and use only my wifi router which
will still leave their phone adapter functioning. I hope that explains
things well enough to be understood. What I need most now is a good
instruction for setting up the NAT stuff with my LAN ip changed to
192.168.0.xx which I think will make it easier for me to follow.
Any further suggestions appreciated,
It appears you want to use your router as a wireless access point
<https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Wireless_access_point>
In the figure on the above page, modem and router are the Viasat box and
you want to use your old router as the AP. DD-WRT supports this, but
it is unusual in consumer routers. You can find lots of material for the
college dorm room use case, e.g.: 5 tips for setting up your dorm room
wireless router
<https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/basics/wireless-basics/32187-5-tips-for-s...
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
George N. White III
12:40 p.m.
Allegedly, on or about 9 May 2019, Bob Goodwin sent:
Everything I have read says Viasat's equipment must be used. ...
It
also contains a voip adapter for the telephone, before this "system
upgrade" two months ago that was separate.
If it's a standard VOIP thing, then you probably can continue to use
separate VOIP adaptors. If your phone plugged directly into their all-
in-one box, and/or requires special configuration by the service
provider, then I'd say no.
I will attach a sketch of what I have to work with now. I did
determine that their router/modem could be put into a bridged
mode but I could not get an internet connection with it and after a
visit from their "technician" it was decided I could not use that
mode?
In bridged mode, the modem is purely a modem. The first thing it
connects to on your system (e.g. your own router) is what the ISP sees
as the first thing on the network. In that your case, your ISP might
need to authenticate your router (normally they'd *allow* their own
equipment). But some ISPs don't disallow customer equipment, anything
you plug into the socket "just works." If you can plug a computer
straight into their modem, and if that works, then plugging it into
your router ought to work.
What I need most now is a good instruction for setting up the NAT
stuff with my LAN ip changed to 192.168.0.xx which I think will make
it easier for me to follow.
Your choice of LAN IPs (all on the same subnet) is probably why things
didn't work, before.
It shouldn't require anything special to set up NAT. It's just going
to be the same kind of thing as the first time you set up your LAN.
Set up your router to use the subnet that you want to use, let it
configure the equipment you haven't manually configured. Then on the
rest of your gear that you need to manually configure, set them to use
new IPs in your new subnet range. Your router would be already doing
NAT all by itself, anyway.
Forgetting your internet service, for the time being. Just connect
your LAN equipment to your router, and get that all talking to each
other on your new IP subnet.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 4.16.11-100.fc26.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 22 20:02:12 UTC 2018 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
There is no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see
the messages posted to the mailing list.
Television should really come with an intelligence knob. I've tried
adjusting the brightness, but it didn't help.
1:13 a.m.
Tim:
> If you could put the ISP supplied thingummy into bridge mode, it
> would act simply as a modem, giving a bare ethernet output to your
> own router.
See this diagram:
https://pasteboard.co/Ib7teuG.png
The upper three boxes show what we think your current situation is.
Internal to the ISP's modem/router is drawn in the cloud below. In
it's modem/router mode, it's a modem followed by a router doing NAT.
NAT means Network Address Translation, which means that it (*any*
router doing NAT) is doing several things:
* Sharing your single connection to the internet to all your LAN
devices.
* Giving each device on your LAN its own different IP address
(different from the WAN address your ISP is allocating to you, and
each device has a unique address). It's using its own DHCP server
to allocate these addresses.
* Managing routing the right connections between inside devices and
the outside world (so that a LAN computer browsing the web, gets its
results directed to it, and other LAN computers get their own
traffic).
The ISP's router's (router 1 on my drawing) WAN input is being assigned
an IP to its router input from upstream (the ISP's DHCP server is
giving it this IP). This will be your public IP that the whole world
sees you as.
That router (1) will be using its own DHCP server to assign addresses
to the devices connected to its output (in your case, that's just your
own router (2) directly connected to it), and router 1 will self assign
an IP to itself for the LAN side of its connections (often a .254
suffixed numerical IP address). These will usually be private IPs in a
192.168.x.y range (there are other ranges). For the sake of my
diagram, I'm using 192.168.1.y as the range the first router (in the
middle) is doling out. The router will probably assign itself
192.168.1.254, and then the first device it gives an IP to will
probably be assigned 192.168.1.1
Your own router (2) is being assigned an IP from the first router (1),
it's probably be 192.168.1.1. That will be its WAN IP (what something
coming from the WAN side of it will address it as). Your own router
will assign itself a different LAN IP (again, probably one ending with
.254), and it will also assign IPs to devices coming after it on your
LAN. However, to avoid a networking nightmare, it's *virtually*
essential to configure your router to use a different subnet. In my
diagram, I've shown the second router using the 192.168.2.y subnet
range. The router would be calling itself 192.168.2.254, and all your
LAN devices would see it at that address. The router will be doling
out IPs like 192.168.2.1 to the devices connected to its LAN side.
(They don't have to be those particular subnet
numbers, I've just chosen obvious ones to suit
the example. And it *may* be possible that you
could get away with everything being on the
same subnet, but you'd be relying on both
routers coping with this, and they may not
be able to.)
If you let your LAN computers be automatically configured, this would
normally work things out by themselves, fine. But if you manually
configure devices, then they must use an IP within the range the router
is going to accept (they must be the same subnet), but shouldn't be
using an IP that the router might automatically dole out.
e.g. Your second router would be using 192.168.2.1 to 192.168.2.253 as
LAN IPs. Its DHCP server might automatically dole out a narrower IPs
from 192.168.2.1 through to 192.168.2.100, leaving you to use IPs from
192.168.2.101 through to 192.168.2.253 on devices that you will
manually configure.
Now, because of all this convolutedness (of two daisy-chained routers),
to get things working, it may well be essential that you first get the
satellite system up, then power up the ISP's modem/router and let it
fully finish booting before you power up your own router. The ISP's
modem/router has to assign your router an IP. It won't do that until
it's finished booting up. And your router may give up waiting before
it gets assigned an IP, and not make any further attempts to get one.
If you could put the modem/router into bridge mode, then that bypasses
its router. You'd get the direct output from the modem, using your
public IP, going into the input of your router. And, you can see from
my diagram, why it gets called a bridge connection (it goes over the
router, and completely bypasses it).
Other things to note:
Because there's at least one level of NAT between your ISP and your
computers, if your ISP changes your IP on you, none of your internal
IPs change. Your router(s) are managing that, not the ISP.
Normally your routers would keep assigning your own computers the same
IP each time. You can (usually) configure them to make sure that they
do (enter the computer's MAC address into the router's DHCP config).
To configure the first router, you may need to connect a computer
directly to its output, it may not allow configuration from an IP
outside its subnet.
If you connect the second router LAN side to the first router, leaving
the WAN port disconnected, then the second router is just acting as a
switch, and you could have two DHCP servers (one from each router)
fighting with each other.
Having two daisy chained routers can work, but you need to make sure
that the LAN addressing is managed well. You'd have to manage your
second router's WiFi (use a different SSID, passphrase, and channel).
Bob Goodwin (re bridge mode):
I have found nothing in the settings indicating that option is
available.
It's probably in there, but your ISP could have rejigged the modem to
remove all manner of configuration options from you.
NetworkManager shows two connection options, Ethernet (eno1)
virbr0, I have it running at the eno1 and a fixed ipaddress on this
computer, that works, the other never did where it would like to be
192.168.122.1. My router does not normally work with that subnet?
It probably doesn't. And that's more NATing inside your computer, to
virtual computing running inside your computer (computers inside
computers, Russian doll style).
The same modem-router is available as new it appears on eBay. I
assume it would not have any other features ...
It could have still features that your ISP has removed.
It is labeled Viasat and model RG1100, the manual is barely
adequate, written in several languages interspersed by paragraph,
annoying but I read through it several times to glean what I could
from it.
Sometimes it's worth looking for an online manual, it may have been
updated, or repaginated.
> It may be worth contacting your ISP and forthrightly mentioning
> that the replacement model is inadequate for your needs, mentioning
> those two particular
I have phoned the ISP numerous times, each call is an adventure, all
I get is gibberish in very hard to understand English. I was married
to a French woman for 45 years ad do not require perfect spoken
English but in too many cases support is a joke in my opinion.
See if you can find a technical support email address. You might get
the issue looked at someone who actually is a tech, rather than someone
just reading (something that they don't understand) from the usual
user-support scripts.
You may find one of their answers is to upgrade to a more expensive
service, with a bigger download limit.
2:10 p.m.
On 4/20/19 6:40 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 04/19/19 21:04, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> That's not what you want. I don't know why you're trying to make a
> network bridge on your computer.
.
Ok, I can accept that based on you greater knowledge, but what's in a
name? I want to connect a wide area network to a local area network but
a network bridge wont work? The procedure for doing it was well written
and quite clear so I thought I would try that.
A bridge is for directly connecting multiple interfaces. One example is
if you want your virtual machine to be directly accessible on the
network. Another is in a wifi router, there's usually a bridge between
the wifi interface and the ethernet interface.
I guess you are saying that I should use NAT? I will continue
googling
for a procedure for doing that,
Yes, NAT is probably what you want. That hides a private network behind
a single external IP address. However, I don't understand why you're
doing this on your computer. This is something that is used on a
firewall/gateway system.
1804
days inactive
1832
days old
62 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
3603060030＠txt.att.net -
Ben Mohilef -
Bob Goodwin -
Cameron Simpson -
Ed Greshko -
fred roller -
Fred Smith -
George N. White III -
Joe Zeff -
Louis Lagendijk -
Mike Chambers -
Mike Wright -
Samuel Sieb -
Tim -
Tony Su