Changing a router's IP address required a call to SBC! Why?!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

My friend recently changed his router's wireless IP address but after
that, his wireless laptop failed to connect to establish a connection
(although it had winXP setup for DHCP).

Anyways, he ended up having to call the router people, who told him to
call sbc, they apparently made some change (bridge? PPP?) and then he
called back the router people, and then it all worked.

I couldnt for the life of me explain what happened... why should
changing your router's ip address cause such a fuss, Ive changed it
dozens of times with no problems, and have never had to call sbc.

Anyone venture to guess what they did and why?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On 19 Sep 2005 11:16:27 -0700, benn686@hotmail.com wrote:

>My friend recently changed his router's wireless IP address but after
>that, his wireless laptop failed to connect to establish a connection
>(although it had winXP setup for DHCP).
>
>Anyways, he ended up having to call the router people, who told him to
>call sbc, they apparently made some change (bridge? PPP?) and then he
>called back the router people, and then it all worked.
>
>I couldnt for the life of me explain what happened... why should
>changing your router's ip address cause such a fuss, Ive changed it
>dozens of times with no problems, and have never had to call sbc.
>
>Anyone venture to guess what they did and why?

Sure. Did he have 5 static IP address service from SBC with a Netopia
3346 (or similar) router? If so, the IP addresses need to be
programmed into the WAN config page in the router. The change may
have been going from a bridged static IP account, to one of the
stupidly implimented "sticky IP" accounts that use routeing instead of
bridging and require a special router. That's a major change but can
be done remotely if they know the MAC address of the router.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

Im not sure he signed up to get static IP addresses, since they are
generally more expensive, arnt they? He goes through SBC's dsl
$14.95/mo (same isp as mine, except I pay 19.95 )

But even if the router people (belkin I believe) did remotely configure
his router, what part did the SBC support play?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

On 19 Sep 2005 17:37:04 -0700, benn686@hotmail.com wrote:

>Im not sure he signed up to get static IP addresses, since they are
>generally more expensive, arnt they? He goes through SBC's dsl
>$14.95/mo (same isp as mine, except I pay 19.95 )

Yes. The under $20 deals, which are intended to bankrupt the former
Pac Bell DSL "partners", are all PPPE with a single IP address.
Static is about $70/month after taxes. So much for that guess.

>But even if the router people (belkin I believe) did remotely configure
>his router, what part did the SBC support play?

Belkin doesn't do remote admin. SBC does not do remote admin without
a major ordeal process, and only by level 2 tech's. Generally, it's
only for major troubleshooting exercises where there's no other
alternative. I've had SBC ship a static IP customer a new router
rather than try to do remote admin. However, I've had a good
experience with Netopia/Cayman doing remote admin and remote upgrades
over the internet. That's almost a requirement as their 3546(?)
routers tend to lose their flash RAM, which contains the license
information, and causes the router to revert to a single IP, single
user, device. The only fix is a remote upgrade and multiple license
install, all orchestrated by Netopia support. I really doubt that
Belkin is able, qualified, or willing to do all this.

My guess #2 is that there was something wrong with the PPPE protocol
implementation in your friends unspecified model Belkin router. There
have been some rather odd implementations of PPPoE which may have been
the problem. Perhaps the DSL modem does not support the ATM circuit
numbers (VPI/VCI) that were setup by SBC. It's possible that SBC
modified their DLSAM or authentication server to accommodate such
Belkin oddities. However, I'm guessing as I don't have any definitive
information on what SBC or Belkin actually were doing.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558