Ethernet ADSL modem?

My mate has just been and bought a Buffalo wireless router thinking he
can just plug it into the phone yada yada.

When i dropped him the bombshell that he wouldn't be able to just plug
his USB Zoom modem in [snigger] he wasn't impressed.

(i did previously say he ought to get a modem/router affair, but he knew
best!)

All i can see him doing is plugging his USB modem into the PC, plugging
the router into his LAN on the PC, and then using the wireless
capabilities for the other PC's on his network.

Pretty pointless setup though really as his PC will still need to be
always on which he's trying to get around.

He's such a 'cocky' git i'm pleased he screwed up, but he is a mate, and
i'd like to help him get it sorted ....

;-)

What's his options? Can u get ethernet modems that he could plug into
the router? I've only ever had dealings with USB before taking the leap
to a Draytek 2600 myself, so i've never tried anything else.

"TX2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> What's his options? Can u get ethernet modems that he could plug into
> the router? I've only ever had dealings with USB before taking the leap
> to a Draytek 2600 myself, so i've never tried anything else.

If possible I would try and return the Buffalo wireless router and then
look for a "all in one" combined modem/router wirless option.

However, if thats not possible he could try something like the ASR-8100 or
ASR-8400 from ebuyer instead.. - that would allow him to plug the Buffalo
router directly into the ADSL modem

Regards
Sunil

In article <bn6b9q$tca75$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a Sunil Sood says...


> However, if thats not possible he could try something like the ASR-8100 or
> ASR-8400 from ebuyer instead.. - that would allow him to plug the Buffalo
> router directly into the ADSL modem


Of course he needs uPNP for Messenger .... do these allow that?

"TX2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <bn6b9q$tca75$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed), a.k.a Sunil Sood says...
>
>
> > However, if thats not possible he could try something like the ASR-8100
or
> > ASR-8400 from ebuyer instead.. - that would allow him to plug the
Buffalo
> > router directly into the ADSL modem
>
>
> Of course he needs uPNP for Messenger .... do these allow that?

It should work all work fine - virtually all ADSL routers have an option
that will allow all traffic through and let Buffalo kit deal with it.

The latest Windows Messenger and MSN Messenger should work even if uPNP is
not available.

Regards
Sunil

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:46:27 +0100, "Sunil Sood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>The latest Windows Messenger and MSN Messenger should work even if uPNP is
>not available.

Really? Suppose your router has an external address of 1.2.3.4 and does
NAT for you. Its own internal address is 192.168.0.1 and the first
connected PC will be 192.168.0.2.

Your mate has almost the same setup, except his external IP address is
5.6.7.8. So his PC is also 192.168.0.2.

So how does Messenger running on a PC with address 192.168.0.2 connect
to a *different* PC with address 192.168.0.2, without UPnP to tell
it that the target PC is on a different network?
--
Jim Hatfield

"TX2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> My mate has just been and bought a Buffalo wireless router thinking he
> can just plug it into the phone yada yada.
>
> When i dropped him the bombshell that he wouldn't be able to just plug
> his USB Zoom modem in [snigger] he wasn't impressed.
>
> (i did previously say he ought to get a modem/router affair, but he knew
> best!)
>
> All i can see him doing is plugging his USB modem into the PC, plugging
> the router into his LAN on the PC, and then using the wireless
> capabilities for the other PC's on his network.
>
> Pretty pointless setup though really as his PC will still need to be
> always on which he's trying to get around.
>
> He's such a 'cocky' git i'm pleased he screwed up, but he is a mate, and
> i'd like to help him get it sorted ....
>
> ;-)
>
> What's his options? Can u get ethernet modems that he could plug into
> the router? I've only ever had dealings with USB before taking the leap
> to a Draytek 2600 myself, so i've never tried anything else.

I use the X-modem from ADSL Nation Ltd, check out the review at
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/hardware.../q3/xmodem.asp. This has
firmware specifically written to work with the Buffalo G54 and using PPPoA
it spoofs the public internet address on to the G54 which then carries out
the NAT and port translation. Since the G54 also has UPnP it advises aware
applications of the public address and negotiates port usage. MSN Messenger
works fine.

I have also tried the D-link DSL-300G modem, which works in a similar way
(bought mine through DSL Warehouse) but it failed after about of week of
use, when I tried to reset it to default config using the reset tit on the
back. Not fixed yet and not impressed!

My research indicated that very few modems actually work this way and I only
found these two. The X-modem is expensive but seems to be doing the job.

Regards
SNG

Sunil Sood wrote:

> "TX2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> What's his options? Can u get ethernet modems that he could plug into
>> the router? I've only ever had dealings with USB before taking the leap
>> to a Draytek 2600 myself, so i've never tried anything else.
>
> If possible I would try and return the Buffalo wireless router and then
> look for a "all in one" combined modem/router wirless option.

If he bought it on the Internet, then distance selling regulations apply and
he can return it for a refund for any (or no) reason.

> However, if thats not possible he could try something like the ASR-8100 or
> ASR-8400 from ebuyer instead.. - that would allow him to plug the Buffalo
> router directly into the ADSL modem

Great piece of kit.

--
Paul

"Jim Hatfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:46:27 +0100, "Sunil Sood"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> >The latest Windows Messenger and MSN Messenger should work even if uPNP
is
> >not available.
>
> Really? Suppose your router has an external address of 1.2.3.4 and does
> NAT for you. Its own internal address is 192.168.0.1 and the first
> connected PC will be 192.168.0.2.
>
> Your mate has almost the same setup, except his external IP address is
> 5.6.7.8. So his PC is also 192.168.0.2.
>
> So how does Messenger running on a PC with address 192.168.0.2 connect
> to a *different* PC with address 192.168.0.2, without UPnP to tell
> it that the target PC is on a different network?

I believe UPnP is only supposed to be used to tell routers what ports to
open to enable the software (Messenger in this case) to work - so isnt
really relevant in your example above

The latest versions of Messenger are much better at dealing with NAT which
is relevant in your example - hence the above should work with no problems.
the older versions were not so compatabible with NAT.

I believe NAT works with the router sending the packets to 5.6.7.8 "from"
1.2.3.4 and recording what computer on the internal network the traffic is
coming from so it can forwad any replies back to the originating machine..

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/nat.htm has some more on the workings of
NAT.

Regards
Sunil

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:01:11 +0100, in article
<(E-Mail Removed)> Jim Hatfield
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:46:27 +0100, "Sunil Sood"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>The latest Windows Messenger and MSN Messenger should work even if uPNP
>>is not available.
>
> Really? Suppose your router has an external address of 1.2.3.4 and does
> NAT for you. Its own internal address is 192.168.0.1 and the first
> connected PC will be 192.168.0.2.
>
> Your mate has almost the same setup, except his external IP address is
> 5.6.7.8. So his PC is also 192.168.0.2.
>
> So how does Messenger running on a PC with address 192.168.0.2 connect
> to a *different* PC with address 192.168.0.2, without UPnP to tell it
> that the target PC is on a different network?

Because each copy of Messenger never sees the 192.168.0.x network, this
range is unroutable. What it sees is a PC with address 1.2.3.4 trying to
connect to a PC 5.6.7.8 (or vice versa), the NAT routers then deal with
the real source and destination addresses invisibly by using the TCP port
numbers to determine which PC the packets must be forwarded to on the
unroutable private network. It manipulates the destination address on
incoming packets and the source address on outgoing packets.

Unless Messenger does something very weird the real IP address won't
matter.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

> If he bought it on the Internet, then distance selling regulations apply and
> he can return it for a refund for any (or no) reason.

Not necessarily if the kit has been opened and "tested" though

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---