[ale] [OT] make dsl modem visible?

[Tim Watts]

OK, so on JK's reasonable theory that my linksys is stuck on serving 
192.168.1.0 to lan clients, I reconfigured the modem as 192.168.3.1. Still no 
go. Tried pinging it from the router and workstation -- not reachable. Tried 
adding a static route to that net on the router -- not reachable. It seems 
that any route I try to add on the router that goes thru the WAN interface 
gets silently rejected. So I think what Jason mentions is what I'll have to 
do. I'm going to explore dd-wrt vs openwrt.

Thanks folks!


On Friday 24 July 2009 1:28:32 pm Jason Fritcher wrote:
> I set this up on my wrt54gs a while ago. With the stock firmware, I
> could not find a way to do this. I changed the router to DD-WRT, and I
> was able to put a 192.168.1.x address on the WAN port, add a route on
> the router so that 192.168.1.x bypassed the pppoe tunnel and was
> routed directly out the WAN port, and add a static router to the modem
> so that it could communicate back. My internal LAN is on the
> 192.168.0.x subnet.
>
> I don't have that modem any more, so I can't offer up my config as an
> example.
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
> > On Friday 24 July 2009 12:31:47 pm JK wrote:
> >> However, I find that even when in bridge mode, my ATT DSL modem (just
> >> a modem, not a router) still serves up its admin interface on
> >> 192.168.1.254
> >> (or maybe 192.168.1.1, can't remember).  And since the default
> >> route from
> >> my router (a Buffalo Airstation running Tomato, but that's not
> >> relevant)
> >> goes through the modem, and since my LAN is on a distinct subnet from
> >> the modem (192.168.80.0/24), I have no problem hitting the modem's
> >> admin interface from machines on my LAN.
> >
> > OK, so sounds like you're saying I might be able to reach it if I
> > put the
> > modem and lan on distinct subnets? So if my lan is 192.168.2.0 (it
> > is) and I
> > put the modem on 192.168.1.0, then would I need to add a static
> > route to it on
> > the router? And/Or on all my lan nodes?
> >
> >> Tim's problem may lie in the fact that practically everything in the
> >> consumer-router world comes pre-configured to serve 192.168.1.0
> >> addresses to LAN clients.  Changing the LAN subnet in the router
> >> config might be all that's necessary.
> >>
> >> -- JK
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ale mailing list
> >> Ale at ale.org
> >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> > --
> > Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
> > -- Oscar Wilde
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

-- 
Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come.
 -- Carl Sandburg