Hi Duncan,
On Monday 28 June 2010 21:50:10 DSinc wrote:
> Gaffer,
> My replies are inline............
> TNX, anyway.
>
> On 06/28/2010 15:45, Gaffer wrote:
> > On Monday 28 June 2010 18:54:39 DSinc wrote:
> >> I still use xDSL. Soon I will move to FIOS. Well, as I get smarter
> >> and answer my ?many? questions (another thread in play!)
> >>
> >> I am beginning (again) to have trouble with my xDSL connection. I
> >> suspect someone local (or ?) keeps camping out on my assigned IP
> >> addy from my ISP so that they can just dick with my xDSL modem or
> >> my Router.
> >>
> >> I know I have my xDSL modem set to a "bridge" mode. I suspect this
> >> makes it a straight wire connection to my Router's WAN port.
> >
> > I would never use "Bridge Mode" unless I was feeding a box that was
> > specifically setup to be a firewall, something like "IP Cop".
>
> Should I NOT use "bridge mode" in my TELCO-supplied modem I would be
> Double Nat-ng and have 2 firewalls.
If you are using your router in bridge mode then it is not doing NAT or
firewalling. Just because Wins has what it calls a firewall has
nothing to do with NAT.
> I view this as excess overhead.
> Perhaps my bad.
> My router does both NAT and supports its' own firewall and SPI. Both
> of these selections have been activated since day one!
You can't have it both ways ! If you have the router firewall switched
on and NAT switched on its not in "Bridge Mode"
> >> I think I have my Router as |strong| as I currently comprehend
> >> its' directions.
> >
> > Your router is not being used as anything but a modem. Its most
> > valuable assets are being thrown away by it being configured as it
> > is.
>
> Can you please share some more logic to this? I believe that my
> Router is my single point of 1st protection to Inbound stuff. Or,
> perhaps you and I are "wired" differently. This comment I do not
> understand.
I doubt that we are "wired" differently. :-)
But you are right, the router should be the 1st point of protection.
If you really have "Bridge Mode" turned on, then its simply a modem
without offering any protection. All "Bridge Mode" does is pass on the
IP address that the ISP assigns to your connection.
> >> Turns out, I have to save Router logs and reboot the Router about
> >> every 3-7 days to recover a semi-firm connection. The Router is a
> >> DLink DGL-4300. All wireless is disabled. I use wired LAN only.
> >
> > I use a Dlink router. I have mine set to firewall and NAT. The
> > firewall blocks all unrequested incoming traffic and lets
> > everything out. NAT allows me to use a range of IP addresses that
> > are not Internet routeable effectively allowing the use of several
> > machines from the single IP that my ISP assigns me. Which
> > incidentally changes each time I restart the router.
>
> OK. Understand this logic. Same-same. That's how life is here too.
> The problem is I have to re-boot the Router several times a day!
This is a totally different issue !
This could simply be a noisy incoming line providing a weak noisy
signal. In fact a weak noisy signal to the router could be anywhere
between the CO and the router.
Or it could be that the router is dieing. I've replaced my router
several times because its performance has become degraded, probably due
to high voltage transients on the telephone line feeding it. I've also
had the spark gaps replaced because they have been damaged during
thunder storms.
> >> Is this possible? Do not know why someone local chooses to pick
> >> on me? I will suppose giggles and laughs for the present!
> >> This is the same view to me as past electrical storm interference
> >> I had with an older (retired) xdsl modem.
The more I read your post, the more I'm inclined to think that the
router could be suspect and the electrical storm interference you refer
to could be the reason.
> > Its quite possible that you have a tracking beacon installed on
> > your machine that reports your machines presence on the Internet.
> > In all probability you wouldn't know if you had.
>
> Please share more about "tracking beacon's?" I will go do a
> search/destroy on them as necessary. I have yet to find one/any yet!
OK ! how about the ones that you installed as part of installing the
driver for a piece of hardware...
> >> Yes, I do NOT KNOW that I might already have an internal "baddie"
> >> in play; other than every scanner I have used comes up negative.
> >
> > What makes you think a scanner will find and report every "baddie"
> > that you might have on your machine.
>
> Oh, I do not. I use what I use. I then use what is suggested to me by
> my betters. And, most of the time, I do find a hint from this List! I
> have both patience and trust in this List. This anomaly is just
> another matter of time at best. At worst, I do so hope the miscreant
> will eventually burn in hell!
>
> >> Thought? Suggestions? Ideas?
> >> Best,
> >> Duncan
Wireshark is good...
--
Best Regards:
Derrick.
Running Open SuSE 11.1 KDE 3.5.10 Desktop.
Pontefract Linux Users Group.
plug @ play-net.co.uk
