Wireshark · Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Using Wireshark for a DSL "link no surf" problem

[Kok-Yong Tan <ktan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Some Comtrend modems can do a port mirror of the WAN (DSL) side.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
             mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

 

-- 
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok

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

 

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

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