Re: Using Wireshark for a DSL "link no surf" problem

[Pedro Tumusok <pedro.tumusok () gmail com>]

If the DSL Led is on, on your modem, the DSLAM interface is up.
If the PVC is changed, then you should not see any L2 data, do a packet
capture and see if you can see data coming from your modem.

Pedro


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Kok-Yong Tan <ktan () realityartisans com>
wrote:

> Yes, I understand why they gave me a /24 but with a /24, all it takes is
> for somebody else on the same subnet to accidentally (not intentionally or
> maliciously for obvious reasons) take my static IP and thus blow me out of
> the water without affecting them too much.  I had this happen once.  With a
> subnet between /24 and /30, they'd notice when their accidentally typo-ed
> IP address didn't work because it didn't match their gateway info.
>
> --
> Reality Artisans, Inc.              #   Network Wrangling and Delousing
> P.O. Box 565, Gracie Station        #   Apple Certified Consultant
> New York, NY 10028-0019            #   Apple Consultants Network member
> <http://www.realityartisans.com> #   Apple Developer Connection member
> Cell: (646) 327-2918 #   Ofc: (212) 369-4876
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 10:59 , "Jamie O. Montgomery" <
> Jamie.Montgomery () comporium com> wrote:
>
>  PPPoE is used for authentication. If you have a static IP, they know who
> has it and you don't need authentication. PPPoE would be the termination
> point for the address, but since it will reside on your firewall, the modem
> needs to bridge the dsl network to the Ethernet network on the public side
> if the firewall
>
>  They give you a /24 because they'd be burning up more IPv4 addresses
> giving you a smaller subnet. Other static IP customers use addresses in
> that subnet along with you.
>
> *Jamie Montgomery | Comporium*
>
> Network Facilities Engineering | Engineering Associate II
>
> www.comporium.com
>
> jamie.montgomery () comporium com
>
>
> *The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments
> thereto are confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from
> disclosure, and are intended for the use of the individual or entity named
> above. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any
> attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail and destroy the
> original message, attachments, and all copies.*
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:34 PM, "Kok-Yong Tan" <ktan () realityartisans com>
> wrote:
>
>  No, the DSL modem is bridging, not routing.  I've been assigned two
> static IPs (although they've given me a /24 net mask!!!) and my firewall is
> assigned one of them.  The firewall is connected directly to the DSL modem
> by Cat6 patch cable.  The other IP is unused (I use it for testing VPN
> configurations).
>
>  I'm not sure but since the Broadxent Briteport is a PPPoE modem, I
> assume PPPoE.  But the tech says that's not correct (WTF?).  And he can't
> explain what they use.  Sigh.
>  --
> Reality Artisans, Inc.              #   Network Wrangling and Delousing
> P.O. Box 565, Gracie Station        #   Apple Certified Consultant
> New York, NY 10028-0019            #   Apple Consultants Network member
> <http://www.realityartisans.com> #   Apple Developer Connection member
>  Cell: (646) 327-2918 #   Ofc: (212) 369-4876
>
>  On Jun 17, 2014, at 22:13 , Pedro Tumusok <pedro.tumusok () gmail com>
> wrote:
>
>  Well if the tech can see stuff, its not what I thought might be the
> problem, which was PVC settings.
>
>  But does your modem get an IP address, ie is it setup as a router or
> does your computer get the ip address?
> Are you using PPPoA/PPPoE etc?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk () iname com> wrote:
>
> > Some Comtrend modems can do a port mirror of the WAN (DSL) side.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org
> > [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Kok-Yong Tan
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:53 PM
> > To: Community support list for Wireshark
> > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Using Wireshark for a DSL "link no surf"
> > problem
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 14:28, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 06/17/2014 08:42 PM, Kok-Yong Tan wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to use Wireshark to troubleshoot a DSL "link no surf"
> > problem?  The ISP insists it's a CPE issue but the problem only started
> > after their Tier 1 tech monkeyed with the DSLAM and/or the CPE (remotely)
> > in
> > some manner.  I find it suspicious that the problem was intermittent
> > packet
> > loss until they tinkered, whereupon the problem became a "link no surf"
> > issue (i.e., there's Layer 2 connectivity but zero Layer 3 traffic
> > passing).
> > > Depends on what you can trace in the CPE, as in, how close to the DSL
> > interface.
> > > Otherwise you'll need capture hardware on the DSL....
> > >
> > > Good luck,
> > > Jaap
> >
> > I can get up to the DSL modem itself.  In hindsight, I'm thinking this
> > isn't
> > going to be of much use and the only way to debug this is with capture
> > hardware on the DSL side as you suggested.  Drat.
> > --
> > Sent from my iPad2 with greater chance of typographical, grammatical and
> > other disasters.  Your indulgence is even more humbly requested.
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
> > Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
> >              mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>
>  --
> Best regards / Mvh
> Jan Pedro Tumusok
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>
> mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
> <wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>
> mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
> <wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>
> mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
> <wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>              mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org
> ?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
             mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe