Help: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL - Routers

This is a discussion on Help: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL - Routers ; My existing setup is as follows: Computers RangeMax *DSL Modem* Verizon DSL The DSL Modem (and old Wirespeed C90-36R516-01) is a modem only, and is starting to fail. So Verizon shipped me a new modem for free "because I was ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Help: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL

  1. Help: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL


    My existing setup is as follows:

    Computers <--> RangeMax <--> *DSL Modem* <--> Verizon DSL

    The DSL Modem (and old Wirespeed C90-36R516-01) is a modem only, and is
    starting to fail. So Verizon shipped me a new modem for free "because I was
    a long standing customer". Okidoki.

    BUT the new modem (Actiontec GT704-GW) is also a wireless router. So my
    preferred topology (because I don't want to lose the rangemax's reach and
    abilities) would be something like:

    Computers <--> RangeMax <--> *GT704* <--> Verizon DSL

    1. I can follow instructions such as this:
    http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101496.asp , to setup the rangemax
    as an access point/switch, but it warns that there is no guarantee of "DHCP
    Pass-through". The setup indicates that the DHCP (for my computers to get
    an ip) would be managed by the GT704. I'm not sure I understand why.

    If all the computers that connect to my network go through the RangeMax,
    shouldn't the RangeMax be the one assigning IP's?

    Or does this raise a "double NAT" problem?

    {Lots of confusion here}


    And 2. This Actiontec GT704-WG seems to have sketchy reviews. If I were to
    dump the
    RangeMax and have the GT704 do the wireless as well as modem duty, then will
    I see drop outs from microwaves turning on, and 2.4 GHz phone use, etc. ?
    Does anyone here have any opinions on this thing good or bad?

    THANKS!!!!!!!!!



  2. Re: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL

    bushwhacker said something like:
    > "Thomas G. Marshall"
    > wrote in
    > message news:xP9Vi.1506$hd1.1232@trndny01...


    ....[rip]...

    >> Computers <--> RangeMax <--> *GT704* <--> Verizon DSL
    >>
    >> 1. I can follow instructions such as this:
    >> http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101496.asp , to setup the
    >> rangemax
    >> as an access point/switch, but it warns that there is no guarantee of
    >> "DHCP
    >> Pass-through". The setup indicates that the DHCP (for my computers
    >> to get an ip) would be managed by the GT704. I'm not sure I
    >> understand why. If all the computers that connect to my network go
    >> through the
    >> RangeMax, shouldn't the RangeMax be the one assigning IP's?
    >>
    >> Or does this raise a "double NAT" problem?


    ....[rip]...

    > Use the rangemax in router config. Just watch for any conflicting IP
    > addy's between the two.
    > You should be able to turn off the wireless on the actiontec also.



    It's been suggested elsewhere (netgear forum) that the rangemax (RM) should
    be a standard router managing the DHCP, and that the Actiontec (AT) should
    be put into "bridge mode" or similar.

    Computers <--> RM (router / DHCP / NAT) <--> AT (bridge mode) <--> Verizon
    DSL

    I can shut off the wireless of the AT, but what exactly is "bridge mode" ?
    It is totally not clear from any documentation. Does a router in "bridge
    mode", particularly " *transparent* bridge mode" mean that it is blindly
    sending packets without intervention out any one of its 4 cat5 ports? If it
    actually just makes the AT a simple modem, then how does it know *where* to
    send the information?

    I know in such a case that the RM then handles the DSL login/authentication,
    just like it would when connected to a dumb DSL modem, but I'm skeptical
    that the AT would know which of the 4 cat5 ports to send the information
    down.








  3. Re: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL


    "Thomas G. Marshall"
    wrote in message news:cD%Vi.4292$sZ.2174@trndny04...
    > bushwhacker said something like:
    >> "Thomas G. Marshall"
    >> wrote in
    >> message news:xP9Vi.1506$hd1.1232@trndny01...

    >
    > ...[rip]...
    >
    >>> Computers <--> RangeMax <--> *GT704* <--> Verizon DSL
    >>>
    >>> 1. I can follow instructions such as this:
    >>> http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101496.asp , to setup the
    >>> rangemax
    >>> as an access point/switch, but it warns that there is no guarantee of
    >>> "DHCP
    >>> Pass-through". The setup indicates that the DHCP (for my computers
    >>> to get an ip) would be managed by the GT704. I'm not sure I
    >>> understand why. If all the computers that connect to my network go
    >>> through the
    >>> RangeMax, shouldn't the RangeMax be the one assigning IP's?
    >>>
    >>> Or does this raise a "double NAT" problem?

    >
    > ...[rip]...
    >
    >> Use the rangemax in router config. Just watch for any conflicting IP
    >> addy's between the two.
    >> You should be able to turn off the wireless on the actiontec also.

    >
    >
    > It's been suggested elsewhere (netgear forum) that the rangemax (RM)
    > should be a standard router managing the DHCP, and that the Actiontec (AT)
    > should be put into "bridge mode" or similar.
    >
    > Computers <--> RM (router / DHCP / NAT) <--> AT (bridge mode) <--> Verizon
    > DSL
    >
    > I can shut off the wireless of the AT, but what exactly is "bridge mode" ?
    > It is totally not clear from any documentation. Does a router in "bridge
    > mode", particularly " *transparent* bridge mode" mean that it is blindly
    > sending packets without intervention out any one of its 4 cat5 ports? If
    > it actually just makes the AT a simple modem, then how does it know
    > *where* to send the information?
    >
    > I know in such a case that the RM then handles the DSL
    > login/authentication, just like it would when connected to a dumb DSL
    > modem, but I'm skeptical that the AT would know which of the 4 cat5 ports
    > to send the information down.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >It will know. The RM will be the only other thing hooked up to any of the 4
    >ports. Putting it into bridge mode will just make it a dumb modem in this
    >config.




  4. Re: I would like this topology: Computers <--> RangeMax <--> DSL Modem/Router <--> Verizon DSL

    lisa swallowz said something like:
    >
    > It will know. The RM will be the only other thing hooked up to any of the
    > 4
    > ports. Putting it into bridge mode will just make it a dumb modem in this
    > config.



    Your reply indent was off by one for some reason BTW.

    Here's the problem now. It turns out that Actiontec I have is a Verizon
    rebranded one which has radically different HTML front-end settings pages.
    The standard GT704-WG way of setting transparent bridge mode is as follows:

    Advanced Settings --> WAN address --> Transparent Bridge Mode

    On this Verizon logo ridden thing the clicking goes:

    Advanced Settings --> WAN address --> (arg! only PPPoE vs. DHCP here!)

    If I flash this thing with the actiontec original firmware update, will that
    crock the modem, or give me a 704 that behaves like Actiontec intended?


    --
    Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...



+ Reply to Thread