> > I had to use the DSL
> > modem's web interface to disable the NAT and PPPoE to make it a simple
> > bridge, so that the wireless router could manage those aspects of the
> > connection.
>
> I can understand the NAT, but why even let the wireless router do
> PPPoE? After all, the cable modem too provides Ethernet for the LAN
> side (where the wireless "router" sits), so all that wifi AP/router
> has to do is talk Ethernet and let the cable/DSL modem frame it anyway
> it wants to the head end.
Personal preference I guess. When I first got DSL back when it was Bell Atlantic, they gave you the DSL modem (which was just a bridge) and a PPPoE client to install on your PC. So to this day at home I like my modem dumb (I scream in delight when I come across a functional one that doesn't have all thsoe new-fangled features, and stuff it in a drawer for a rainy [literally, since lightning is a problem] day), and like the PPPoE client on my [slackware linux] gateway box so that I can do with it as I please (script healthchecks, reconfigure iptables remotely, massage syslogs, etc.).
So one of the penalties of having Matt For Tech Support is Matt Sets Things Up How He Likes Them Or He'll Forget. ;) If Dad calls with a question, I can have him go to the Wifi Router and read me the PPP config from one place, instead of getting it from the DSL Modem (whose web admin interface is far less user-friendly) which would be two hops away, and inaccessible should the Wifi Router be the problem.
> Unless of course you want to cut the cable/
> DSL modem out of the loop altogether and have the WiFi router speak
> directly to the DSLAM or what-have-you at the head end (Linksys et al
> sell such boxes, so perhaps that's what you are speaking of?).
No, but I've considered those, but would have to actually pay for one, which is against my principles when it comes to devices like we're discussing.
> And w.r.t NAT, NAT'ed NAT, though it’s a bit of a waste, should work
> fine, I think. I have three levels of NAT going on in my home network
> (thanks to the VoIP switch NAT, WiFi NAT, and then my work VPN access
> box's NAT) ;-).
Sure, no technical reason it wouldn't work. From my perspective I found it easier to support when it is only one hop from the PC to the device managing the PPPoE connection.
As an aside, when I was setting this up I had to call Verizon for help and reached their offshore support in the Phillipines. The Firefox Plugin (which ran the DSL installer) had a step which pushed your username/password to their DSL Modem, but you had to give it the existing user/pass (admin/admin of course) to do it. Our's wasn't working, presumably because this DSL Modem had a different default user/pass. This was when I realized I was going to run into issues unless I disabled PPPoE on either the new DSL Modem or the existing WiFi Router, so after she gave me the right user/pass, I asked if she minded walking me through a few questions about the config of the Modem so I could disable what I needed to. She was apprehensive at first but after she realized I spoke her language (tech) she was incredibly helpful.
I said to Dad: "I really do not understand why people get so frustrated with tech support, especially offshore support! She was awesome!"
Dad said: "All it sounded like to me was that you were flirting with her!"
Matt
-- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim: beyondzero123 yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Theoretically, people see money on the counter, and no one around, they think they're being watched.
-Dante Hicks Honesty through paranoia.
-Veronica