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

[Kok-Yong Tan <ktan () realityartisans com>]

This is what I'm suspecting (that the first Tier 1 tech accidentally killed my credentials either on the DSL modem or 
at their RADIUS server or even accidentally shutting down the PVC or DSLAM interface).  The ISP (MegaPath/MegaPutz) has 
a nasty habit of "accidentally" administratively disabling circuits.  I once used to be a reseller for them until they 
"accidentally" administratively disabled a circuit of a client that was fully paid up.  They denied it for an entire 
month until I found a helpful tech support rep at random who was willing to check it out for me and then within 20 
seconds, the circuit came back up.  I called up their accounting department about reimbursement for the month of no 
service for the client and they dodged me.  I'm currently stuck with them because I need to be using DSL (I can't use 
cable due to location issues) and the alternative DSL provider in my area (Verizon) is worse (bad experiences with them 
also).
-- 
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 11:15 , Aaron Wasserott <aaron.wasserott () viawest com> wrote:

> Some ISPs will still use PPP even though you have static assignments. This gives them an easy way to lock accounts 
> for non-payment in their RADIUS server, instead of having to shut down the PVC or DSLAM interface.
>  
> From: wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org]On Behalf Of Jamie O. 
> Montgomery
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:59 AM
> To: Community support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Using Wireshark for a DSL "link no surf" problem
>  
> 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
>  
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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

___________________________________________________________________________
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