[CLUE-Tech] DSL Recommendations

[Frank Whiteley]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Gushee" <mgushee at hypermall.net>
To: <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:16 AM
Subject: [CLUE-Tech] DSL Recommendations


<snipped painful part>

>  > 2. How is DSL setup under Linux?  Do they assign static IPs or DHCP?
Anything
>  > special here?
>
> I think most ISPs will give you a dynamic IP, but often offer static
> as an option, sometimes for a few extra $ ... except it isn't always
> really a static IP. I think sometimes what they call a static IP is
> really a DHCP reservation or something similar, which can have
> consequences for, e.g. accessing your office through a firewall.
>
This is likely a configuration issue.  Some VPN clients 'like' serial
connections, so you might find some issues with NAT enabled.  The CISCO 67X
will allow you to route a specific port to a particular box, including
private IP space.  It also will support up to four subnets using eth0, and
vip0 - vip2 so you can mix NAT and public IP space.  Mapping ports is
required even for more trivial solutions like printing from the new FEDEX
label printers.  Calling FEDEX was useless as their answer was simply that
ports 7443, 443, 80, and 21 had to be open.  The real answer is the external
IP address, ports, and protocol has to be mapped to the box where the
printer is installed.  Quite a few small businesses are struggling with this
at the moment if the calls I've been getting are any indication.  A static
IP is needed to make this stable, since a momentary interrruption will
likely cause a change in dynamic IP assignment, meaning you'd have to remap
the ports each time this happens.

The CISCO can be configured in PPP or bridged mode.  PPP is recommended
since it will auto-connect if there is a momentary interruption.  The bridge
mode may require your ISP to reset the circuit.  This usually means if you
are usually public IPs, you will also need a static IP to route to those
public IPs.

>  > 3. The Qwest page talks about 'modems'.  I can only assume they are
talking
>  > about a router, right?  Much like my cable 'modem' is actually a
bridge, the
>
> I guess they're a kind of router, although they don't have all the
> capabilities of a normal router -- I guess; I'm not very familiar with
> routers. I suppose they think the term modem is non-threatening to the
> average Joe. Then again, Cisco uses some other jargon for them.
>
The CISCO67X  on DSL is an okay router.  You can add sophistication with the
Cisco PIX 506 and 515 Secure Firewalls.

>  > company uses the term 'modem' as a catch-all network connection.
Anyway, based
>  > on my experiences, the external option seems less problematic.  Are you
using
>  > internal or external 'modem'?
>
Yeah, cable users have been calling for a dial-up connection.  We ask if
they have a modem, and they say sure.  BZZZT.  In most cases so far, there's
no modem in the box when we get there.  They think the cable device is a
modem.  At least we've been able to provide them with a modem on the spot;^)
Some folks can't afford to wait.  Interesting how those folks who've set up
the cable service have removed and walked off with the modems and customers
have let them.

Pay $95 for the CISCO67X, forget the Internal or USB devices.  You'll have
many more future options, like MACs, Linux, home networking, etc.

> I have a Cisco 678 external device. And yes, I'd say it's less
> problematic, or really not problematic at all. If you plug your
> external "modem" to an ethernet hub, you can then connect one or more
> 'puters to the hub just like any other LAN. The "modem" does NAT, and
> you can set it to act as a DHCP server if you like. Cisco provides a
> reasonably well-documented command line interface for configuring
> everything. Although you'll get instructions telling you to use the
> Windows app they provide, you really don't need to use that. You can
> connect to the Cisco 678 through a serial connection, telnet, or http
> (the latter two are on by default but can be disabled for better
> security).
>
Yes, except that written documentation is severely lacking, as is Qwest
tier-one, tier-two support for 'non-standard' applications.

Frank Whiteley