FTTC - using an older PPPoE router

This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?

As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL modem.
This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it work on a
network it will require a device - like an all in one home gateway/router
(or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for authentication.

We have multiple public IP addresses from our provider so deploy a basic
edge ADSL router/modem set up using NO NAT. It is not providing anything
other than basic L3 routing for our little block, and it feeds a number
of internal firewalls, routers and hosts. To make FTTC 'fit' for us, we
simply need to change our current basic edge router/modem to something
near identical but with an Ethernet WAN instead of ADSL.

Looking at various postings and forums it seems that there are only a few
'routers' on the market that target FTTC VSDL. We don't want to shell out
on anything expensive that offers a pile of features we don't need for
the job (Draytek), but at the same time the Netgear WNR1000 is almost
definitely a no for us.

Needing only basic facilities I wondered if there would be any problem
using an old Linksys router designed for cable as long as it could
support PPPoE OK? I suspect if there are any issues it would be speed
related and this is where my understanding lets me down. PPPoE on a wan
port - being PPP over Ethernet (with no ATM as it's not an ADSL router)
should be in the order of either 10mbps or 100mbps anyway?

Is it possible to find out
(a) if this is correct
(b) the actual speed of such a device can support
(c) if the device will support this at all?

We don't need to upgrade, our speed and throughput are OK for our needs,
but it would make some improvement without a doubt. For what we pay now
upgrading to our providers FTTC package will cost us just over £2 per
month. However, there is a fee of nearly £50 for the installation before
we consider the hardware change costs - the only variable in the cost. So
finding a lower cost basic router/gateway would not only help us, it may
help other people googling for a similar answer.

I note the Linksys WRT310N offered speeds of '300mbps' for CABLE services
- but had wireless which we really don't need. Surely someone makes
something simple and cheap to do this job!

In article <in1b3s$fkj$(E-Mail Removed)>,
R White <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
> definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?
>
> As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL modem.
> This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it work on a
> network it will require a device - like an all in one home gateway/router
> (or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for authentication.
>
> [....]
>
> I note the Linksys WRT310N offered speeds of '300mbps' for CABLE services
> - but had wireless which we really don't need. Surely someone makes
> something simple and cheap to do this job!

This looks simple and cheap! http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232676

I haven't tried it, but the spec looks ok and you can't beat the price!

Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: (E-Mail Removed) - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: (E-Mail Removed) - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:59:30 +0000, Tony Mountifield scribe:

> In article <in1b3s$fkj$(E-Mail Removed)>, R White
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
>> definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?
>>
>> As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL
>> modem. This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it
>> work on a network it will require a device - like an all in one home
>> gateway/router (or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for
>> authentication.
>>
>> [....]
>>
>> I note the Linksys WRT310N offered speeds of '300mbps' for CABLE
>> services - but had wireless which we really don't need. Surely someone
>> makes something simple and cheap to do this job!
>
> This looks simple and cheap! http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232676
>
> I haven't tried it, but the spec looks ok and you can't beat the price!
>
> Tony

Thanks Tony, but I'll pass on that :-) Had issues with Edimax products
before - but agree the price is attractive :-)

I have an old Linksys in the loft that may do the job yet. I can't see
any technical reason for it not to work unless I'm missing something
glaringly obvious - something entirely possible!

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:12:40 +0000, R White scribe:

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:59:30 +0000, Tony Mountifield scribe:
>
>> In article <in1b3s$fkj$(E-Mail Removed)>, R White
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
>>> definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?
>>>
>>> As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL
>>> modem. This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it
>>> work on a network it will require a device - like an all in one home
>>> gateway/router (or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for
>>> authentication.
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>> I note the Linksys WRT310N offered speeds of '300mbps' for CABLE
>>> services - but had wireless which we really don't need. Surely someone
>>> makes something simple and cheap to do this job!
>>
>> This looks simple and cheap! http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232676
>>
>> I haven't tried it, but the spec looks ok and you can't beat the price!
>>
>> Tony
>
> Thanks Tony, but I'll pass on that :-) Had issues with Edimax products
> before - but agree the price is attractive :-)
>
Just following up on my own post here. Someone has been kind enough to
run through the interface on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=MRz4i5xDDOc

Supports PPPoE, supports NO NAT. For £15 it may just be worth a gamble.

"R White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:in1b3s$fkj$(E-Mail Removed)...
> This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
> definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?
>
> As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL modem.
> This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it work on a
> network it will require a device - like an all in one home gateway/router
> (or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for authentication.

[snip]

I only know what was done by Rutland Telecom. They supplied a VDSL modem
with an Ethernet interface.

I connected it to the WAN port of an Ethernet router (actually Draytek). It
does not require any PPPoE username/password.

I can't comment as to whether other suppliers who use BT Openreach to
install the service require a PPPoE client - but your (proposed) ISP should
be able to tell you.

--
Graham J

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:19:05 +0100, Graham J scribe:

> "R White" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:in1b3s$fkj$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
>> definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?
>>
>> As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL
>> modem. This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it
>> work on a network it will require a device - like an all in one home
>> gateway/router (or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for
>> authentication.
>
> [snip]
>
> I only know what was done by Rutland Telecom. They supplied a VDSL
> modem with an Ethernet interface.
>
> I connected it to the WAN port of an Ethernet router (actually Draytek).
> It does not require any PPPoE username/password.
>
> I can't comment as to whether other suppliers who use BT Openreach to
> install the service require a PPPoE client - but your (proposed) ISP
> should be able to tell you.

{} Tips hat in thanks for response

R White wrote, on 31/03/2011 08:39:
> This has probably been asked many times, but I can't seem to find a
> definitive answer - perhaps someone here knows?
>
> As I understand it, FTTC terminates on a BTW supplied Huawei VSDL modem.
> This modem is 'dumb' to all intents and purposes. To make it work on a
> network it will require a device - like an all in one home gateway/router
> (or PC/MAC) - that has a PPPoE client for authentication.
>
> We have multiple public IP addresses from our provider so deploy a basic
> edge ADSL router/modem set up using NO NAT. It is not providing anything
> other than basic L3 routing for our little block, and it feeds a number
> of internal firewalls, routers and hosts. To make FTTC 'fit' for us, we
> simply need to change our current basic edge router/modem to something
> near identical but with an Ethernet WAN instead of ADSL.
>
> Looking at various postings and forums it seems that there are only a few
> 'routers' on the market that target FTTC VSDL. We don't want to shell out
> on anything expensive that offers a pile of features we don't need for
> the job (Draytek), but at the same time the Netgear WNR1000 is almost
> definitely a no for us.
>
> Needing only basic facilities I wondered if there would be any problem
> using an old Linksys router designed for cable as long as it could
> support PPPoE OK? I suspect if there are any issues it would be speed
> related and this is where my understanding lets me down. PPPoE on a wan
> port - being PPP over Ethernet (with no ATM as it's not an ADSL router)
> should be in the order of either 10mbps or 100mbps anyway?
>
> Is it possible to find out
> (a) if this is correct
> (b) the actual speed of such a device can support
> (c) if the device will support this at all?

The issue AIUI is that a router has to process each IP packet in order
to determine where to send it, so the speed of throughput is related to
how quickly the processor can do that rather than the nominal line speed
of the port.

The following web site might help:

<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/>

If you have the time, a thorough reading of the "smallnetbuilder" web
site will offer a lot of information which I have found very useful in
the past.

--
Dave N

The only thing I would criticise that for is that it's not Gigabit
Ethernet (1000Mb/s), only Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s). While this may not
be an issue for internet traffic going through the router, it will
become more of an issue with LAN-side traffic as new PCs now come with
Gigabit Ethernet LAN ports almost as standard.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:59:30 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (Tony
Mountifield) wrote:

> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232676
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:12:30 +0100, Java Jive scribe:

> The only thing I would criticise that for is that it's not Gigabit
> Ethernet (1000Mb/s), only Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s). While this may not
> be an issue for internet traffic going through the router, it will
> become more of an issue with LAN-side traffic as new PCs now come with
> Gigabit Ethernet LAN ports almost as standard.
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:59:30 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (Tony
> Mountifield) wrote:
>
>> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232676

Hear what you say, but it would not be an issue as our gigabit stuff is
kept on other switches. Only WAN stuff would forward to this device.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:07:31 +0100, Dave N scribe:

> If you have the time, a thorough reading of the "smallnetbuilder" web
> site will offer a lot of information which I have found very useful in
> the past.
Thanks - I'll take a read through that.

The provider have pretty much said any half decent router that allows a
PPP login to be supplied, can have NAT disabled and allows a static ip
AND NETMASK to be entered should be fine. I'll give this little £15 unit
a go, with my old Linksys cable modem on 'standby'.

Thanks for the input - kindly received.

Java Jive wrote:
> The only thing I would criticise that for is that it's not Gigabit
> Ethernet (1000Mb/s), only Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s). While this may not
> be an issue for internet traffic going through the router, it will
> become more of an issue with LAN-side traffic as new PCs now come with
> Gigabit Ethernet LAN ports almost as standard.

So, use a gigabit switch.