. 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
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.
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?
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
ON @kingstontech
-----Original Message----- From: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:04:47 -0400 To: 3603060030@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
Please ignore that message.
-----Original Message----- From: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:10:05 +0000 (UTC) To: 3603060030@txt.att.net Subject: RE: Re: Modem/Router/Router -
ON @kingstontech
-----Original Message----- From: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:04:47 -0400 To: 3603060030@txt.att.net Subject: Re: Mo
================================================================== This mobile text message is brought to you by AT&T
On 14Apr2019 18:41, Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@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@cskk.id.au
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 ...
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
Is this of any help?
http://wildbluetools.com/content/FS/110/111/I12000_EnableDisableBridgeModemS...
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.
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.
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.
_
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 10May2019 07:13, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@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@cskk.id.au
On 5/10/19 8:28 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 10May2019 07:13, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@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.
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.
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.
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?
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. :-) :-)
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 07:21, Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@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-setting-up-your-dorm-room-wireless-router
Bob
-- Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD box83 FEDORA-29/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@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
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:
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.
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.
-
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