I think you accidentally only replied to me. Glad you got it figured out. I actually believe to the contrary, I've seen few routers which block ICMP requests. Typically it's modems that don't respond to ping (ironically). People seem to put more emphasis on it being a security issue than it really is if you ask me, it's not a major concern to be responding to pings and is a very useful diagnostic (if this weren't true, why would major websites like google and yahoo respond to ping). Besides, ping floods are a thing of the past... Doesn't matter what type of network traffic it is, if it saturates your connection, you will lose your service regardless of if you're responding to the said traffic.
If you need help with something more complex than your typical helpdesk person could tell you (such as what ports U-Verse blocks etc) let me know I'd be glad to get in touch with my U-Verse contacts and find out a good answer for you. Also might be able to get you a way to contact tier2 U-Verse support if you need something they can help with. Meanwhile, for most everything that doesn't require administrative work, you can find exceptional articles at support.att.com. It's a bit of a bear to use the website, but not too bad once you figure it out. The articles you find here are the exact articles many agents use to walk you through things. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Paul Spicer <[email protected]> wrote: > Wow. Lots of replies... Wish I'd checked this thread sooner. :P > > I managed to resolve the SSH problem, though I feel really stupid now. Turns > out my DSL gateway WAS blocking traffic. Rather, it wasn't passing the WAN > IP address to my openwrt router. (I had it set up to passthrough to my other > router, but since the openwrt router is a 'new device', it was treated as > such...) Sorry to have wasted everyone's time on that. (I previously had > regular DSL through AT&T, but recently 'upgraded' to Uverse and the 2Wire > gateway is a bit more stubborn than my ole' Westel DSL modem.) > > So, I got that sorted out and am now able to connect by SSH from the WAN. > > HTTP is still not working. There's no option in the configuration to allow > external access to the web interface, but I am still able to access it from > inside the network using the WAN IP. > > On a related note, most routers come out of the box configured to drop ICMP > requests... This one seems to be accepting them, as I can ping it all day > long... But that's not so critical right now. > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Chad Bailey <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 19:03 -0400, Gene Cronk wrote: >> >> There's always DD-WRT, too. >> > >> > I went that route, but at some point will check out openwrt. Just at the >> > time was doing it for a client, and didn't want to bother with >> > making/compiling openwrt. >> > >> > Though Not sure about running dd-wrt in a vm, as it seems some do with >> > openwrt. I might try that some time. Would be curious to know if anyone >> > in the LUG has gone that route either. I think most using openwrt in a >> > vm are not using it as a WAP. Just a software router appliance in a vm. >> >> Never used an x86 version of any, sorry. >> >> > >> > -- >> > William L. Thomson Jr. >> > Obsidian-Studios, Inc. >> > http://www.obsidian-studios.com >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 >> > RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml >> > Unsubscribe [email protected] >> > >> > >> >> Since alternatives are being mentioned, I wanted to advise I've used >> DD-WRT for a good while and also tomato. While I consider openwrt >> completely different, those two are very similar. I prefer tomato not >> only for ethical reasons, but the QoS on the tomato works quite well. >> Also, the ability to manage your network, see real time usage, >> connection graphs etc are all features tomato completely trumps DD-WRT >> for. I also have experienced a much more stable firmware with tomato, >> DD-WRT I used to have some problems with the occasional crash (much >> more than occasional if operating in any mode other than >> infrastructure, for example wireless client mode). I suspect many of >> these things have improved since the last time I used DD-WRT. I do >> still use a micro version for a neutered wrt54g I've got, but it's not >> really fair to DD-WRT to base any opinions off of this crappy micro >> version on the crappy linksys with its 2mb of flash. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 >> RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml >> Unsubscribe [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive http://marc.info/?l=jaxlug-list&r=1&w=2 RSS Feed http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml Unsubscribe [email protected]
