DLink DSL 300G+ Saga continues.....

Those of you who have followed this tale of woe will be aware that I have
been suffering dropped connection problems on Pipex for nearly three weeks
now - long before Pipex finally declared that there are connection probs
(albeit *ONLY* on the xtreme realm - I'm on the xtreme3 realm).

You will also remember that, following *EXTENSIVE* line testing by both
Pipex and BT that their conclusion was that the modem must be faulty (a fact
queried by me because if it was faulty then why did the connection work with
some Pipex dynamically allocated IP addresses and not with others?

The modem was returned to DLink and 10days later I have another
(replacement) DSL 300G+. Plugged it in, set it up, and ......... *EXACTLY*
the same as before......... dropped connections after 30 seconds of making a
connection!

And *EXACTLY* the same symptoms...... some Pipex dynamically allocated IP
addresses stay connected, whilst other Pipex dynamically allocated IP
addresses drop!

The next step is to allow Pipex to arrange for a BT Engineer to visit and
checkout my end - but that's going to cost £58 for the privilege!

How on earth do I convince Pipex that they *REALLY* do have a problem?
--
(E-Mail Removed)
Reply address is spamtrapped. Remove theobvious for valid e-mail address


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:55:06 GMT, "Paul King"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Those of you who have followed this tale of woe will be aware that I have
>been suffering dropped connection problems on Pipex for nearly three weeks
>now - long before Pipex finally declared that there are connection probs
>(albeit *ONLY* on the xtreme realm - I'm on the xtreme3 realm).
>
>You will also remember that, following *EXTENSIVE* line testing by both
>Pipex and BT that their conclusion was that the modem must be faulty (a fact
>queried by me because if it was faulty then why did the connection work with
>some Pipex dynamically allocated IP addresses and not with others?
>
>The modem was returned to DLink and 10days later I have another
>(replacement) DSL 300G+. Plugged it in, set it up, and ......... *EXACTLY*
>the same as before......... dropped connections after 30 seconds of making a
>connection!
>
>And *EXACTLY* the same symptoms...... some Pipex dynamically allocated IP
>addresses stay connected, whilst other Pipex dynamically allocated IP
>addresses drop!
>
>The next step is to allow Pipex to arrange for a BT Engineer to visit and
>checkout my end - but that's going to cost £58 for the privilege!
>
>How on earth do I convince Pipex that they *REALLY* do have a problem?

Well, I've got one and had the same problems you are having.
From reading the previous threads I decided to try setting it into
bridge mode (luckily my sonicwall firewall has PPPoE authentication
built in)

Viola!! all my problems have gone, a rock solid connection. The only
downside is that the modem has disappeared completely. However I can
live with that.

If you've got the kit, I would recommend giving it a try.

Rick....

Rick wrote:
[snip]
> Well, I've got one and had the same problems you are having.
> From reading the previous threads I decided to try setting it into
> bridge mode (luckily my sonicwall firewall has PPPoE authentication
> built in)
>
> Viola!! all my problems have gone, a rock solid connection.

Same story here. Use bridge mode if you can.

In so far as this modem has bugs in it, they'll require revised
firmware. Since there isn't any revised firmware, rma'ing it to DLink
seems a bit of a waste of time since any replacement will have the same
firmware. The problem with the cheap modem/router companies is that
there's no money in revising firmware and almost no comeback for
consumers landed with products that technically work but which clearly
don't work properly. The money is in issuing a revised product with new
firmware thereby forcing users to pay for a company's own mistakes by
upgrading. Or so it appears to me.



Fish

"Fish" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3sadndTf5t7vvabdRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Rick wrote:
> [snip]
> > Well, I've got one and had the same problems you are having.
> > From reading the previous threads I decided to try setting it into
> > bridge mode (luckily my sonicwall firewall has PPPoE authentication
> > built in)
> >
> > Viola!! all my problems have gone, a rock solid connection.
>
> Same story here. Use bridge mode if you can.
>
Well...well...well! After 30+ hours connected, Pipex dynamically changed my
IP address, and the connection promptly dropped at 00:30 this morning! I was
in bed, so didn't notice until I checked my router logs at work via webmail.
Got home this evening and changed the connectopn mode from PPPoA to PPPoE
and it connected 1st time! What's more, if I do a disconnect/reconnect cycle
it connects (and stays connected) every time!

It didn't like Bridge mode tho'. It didn't seem to connect to anything. I
may not understand this mode however!

--
(E-Mail Removed)
Reply address is spamtrapped. Remove theobvious for valid e-mail address


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004

another thing you could try, is to change the Encapsulation from VcMux to
LLC. That fixed all my connection problems on Virgin.


"Paul King" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) s.com...
> "Fish" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3sadndTf5t7vvabdRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Rick wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Well, I've got one and had the same problems you are having.
> > > From reading the previous threads I decided to try setting it into
> > > bridge mode (luckily my sonicwall firewall has PPPoE authentication
> > > built in)
> > >
> > > Viola!! all my problems have gone, a rock solid connection.
> >
> > Same story here. Use bridge mode if you can.
> >
> Well...well...well! After 30+ hours connected, Pipex dynamically changed
my
> IP address, and the connection promptly dropped at 00:30 this morning! I
was
> in bed, so didn't notice until I checked my router logs at work via
webmail.
> Got home this evening and changed the connectopn mode from PPPoA to PPPoE
> and it connected 1st time! What's more, if I do a disconnect/reconnect
cycle
> it connects (and stays connected) every time!
>
> It didn't like Bridge mode tho'. It didn't seem to connect to anything. I
> may not understand this mode however!
>
> --
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Reply address is spamtrapped. Remove theobvious for valid e-mail address
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/2004
>
>

Paul King wrote:

[snip]

> It didn't like Bridge mode tho'. It didn't seem to connect to anything. I
> may not understand this mode however!
>
I found that bridge mode only worked if I first switched the modem to
bridge mode then turned it off, set up my router for authentication
using PPoE and rebooted it, then turned the modem on. The router
wouldn't authenticate if I changed it to PPoE while the modem was
already on and in bridge mode. However, it's been working continously in
bridge/PPoE for several days now and everything seems fine so far.

I did try PPOA LLC and that worked too. The problem is that only about 1
in 3 or 4 connections was cycling the dhcp leases at a respectable 30
seconds according to the router logs. Usually the modem reverted to the
dysfunctional 6 seconds that's been causing problems for folks.



Fish

"Fish" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:442dncbITKYwnKDdRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I found that bridge mode only worked if I first switched the modem to
> bridge mode then turned it off, set up my router for authentication
> using PPoE and rebooted it, then turned the modem on. The router
> wouldn't authenticate if I changed it to PPoE while the modem was
> already on and in bridge mode. However, it's been working continously in
> bridge/PPoE for several days now and everything seems fine so far.
>
> I did try PPOA LLC and that worked too. The problem is that only about 1
> in 3 or 4 connections was cycling the dhcp leases at a respectable 30
> seconds according to the router logs. Usually the modem reverted to the
> dysfunctional 6 seconds that's been causing problems for folks.
>
Aha! Thanks for that. I'll try it *NEXT* time I get a disconn.

--
(E-Mail Removed)
Replace the dots and remove nospam for valid email address

Fish,

Tried out bridge mode - as detailed in your note - Works fine!!!!!
However, I can no longer access the modem on 192.168.0.1

Do I need to set up something in the router's firewall to gain access?


--
(E-Mail Removed)
Reply address is spamtrapped. Remove theobvious for valid e-mail address

Paul King wrote:
> Fish,
>
> Tried out bridge mode - as detailed in your note - Works fine!!!!!
> However, I can no longer access the modem on 192.168.0.1
>
> Do I need to set up something in the router's firewall to gain access?
>
>

I know sfa about the technicalities of this and arrived at the method by
trial and error. I don't know whether isps or BT would approve either.

My understanding is that bridge mode turns the m into a glorified wire,
piping the connection straight from the isp to your router or computer
pretty well like the old 56k modem. So either there isn't an ip number
any more, or if there is I've never been able to reach it. Still, my
connection's been running without a hitch since last Saturday so I'm not
complaining.



Fish

"Fish" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Still, my
> connection's been running without a hitch since last Saturday so I'm not
> complaining.
>
Absolutely! I guess I'll just forget about it, unless I need to reconfig
the modem, then I could just conn. it directly to a PC.

Ta muchly for the info.


--
(E-Mail Removed)
Reply address is spamtrapped. Remove theobvious for valid e-mail address