Reliance Broadnet + Tata Indicom

[sohamsoham]

I use a Xincom 502 dual WAN router to hook up to both my broadband accounts, and this in turn feeds into a Netgear wireless router. On my network I have a number of computers (Macs and PCs) and standalone IP devices (for audio, video, voice, etc). QUESTION: This is not any attempt to answer your detailed concerns, but rather express my need here. From the quote above, can I infer that if I place a router as Netgear WGT624 after the BSNl-supplied-configured router, and before my LAN, I will be able to connect to BB simultaneously with a single account, at least with the 4 ports that come with it?If "yes" to the latter, is there any way I can share the BB connection for my LAN of 25 PCs or so?

 

[Labchip]

QUOTE(sohamsoham @ Mar 12 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]83077[/snapback]
From the quote above, can I infer that if I place a router as Netgear WGT624 after the BSNl-supplied-configured router, and before my LAN, I will be able to connect to BB simultaneously with a single account, at least with the 4 ports that come with it?
If "yes" to the latter, is there any way I can share the BB connection for my LAN of 25 PCs or so?[/b]

Well this is a bit OT but, nevertheless ....

Yes... That's the whole point behind a router. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but I think most home routers can handle up to 253 clients (or close to that). The four ports ports provided are usually standard on home / small office routers. You can use one or all of the four to plug into additional switches/hubs or wireless access points or even into other routers (wireless or not) in turn. Alternatively you can simply start with a wireless router and then all you need is wireless adapters on your 4 or 25 clients.

I don't know the details of the BSNL connection, but if it is PPPoE, most routers will be able to provide the logon credentials directly.

HTH

 

[netfreak]

QUOTE(Labchip @ Mar 12 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]83080[/snapback]
Yes... That's the whole point behind a router. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but I think most home routers can handle up to 253 clients (or close to that)........[/b]


For those many (25 or 253) connections, it is better to go for a Switch then a router.

Reason is, these routers are not greared up to handle that much traffic. Even a decent PC (2 GHz+ and 1 GB RAM) struggles to keep up with 100 connections. That is if you share internet through windows "Internet connection sharing" or Linux IPTables.

Picking up packets + handling NAT + WEP/WAP encryption means lots of CPU power; if PCs are transferring large files at LAN speeds. And home/SOHO routers do not have enough power.

OTOH, switch does not have to bother about IP stuff so you can buy one that handels 30 ports for cheap.

Configuration can look like:
Dual WAN Router ---> Switch ---> [ PCs + One DHCP Server]


Of course if some router is built to handle large number of connections then this does not apply. But those routers cost way too much.

 

[Labchip]

@macboy - w00t!!! I think my Reliance ICMP + HTTP Keep Alive Packets from the router seems to be doing their job. Last night we had a Tata failure and it seamlessly moved over to Reliance. I repeated it manually this morning by switching off the Tata Modem, and again all the devices continued working without a hitch. Lets see if this lasts over a longer period of time.@ netfreak - you're right about the el cheapo routers - my Xincom one though has a pretty pretty quality switch included. But even with some models from D-Link & Linksys - I have had pretty good LAN performance with about 10-15 devices on the network. At our office, we had well over 100 computers on the LAN, and even without a top end router/switch - we got close to 100Mbps connectivity constantly. I think for this user, with upto 25 connections, the Netgear router should not cause a considerable performance hit unless he is constantly moving around really huge files on his LAN. With respect to the connection sharing, the external WAN speed is so much lower than the capacity of the LAN, that there should not be a noticeable effect. My 2 cents!

 

[zinxlinx]

QUOTE(Labchip @ Mar 13 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]83206[/snapback]
@macboy - w00t!!! I think my Reliance ICMP + HTTP Keep Alive Packets from the router seems to be doing their job. Last night we had a Tata failure and it seamlessly moved over to Reliance. I repeated it manually this morning by switching off the Tata Modem, and again all the devices continued working without a hitch. Lets see if this lasts over a longer period of time.

@ netfreak - you're right about the el cheapo routers - my Xincom one though has a pretty pretty quality switch included. But even with some models from D-Link & Linksys - I have had pretty good LAN performance with about 10-15 devices on the network. At our office, we had well over 100 computers on the LAN, and even without a top end router/switch - we got close to 100Mbps connectivity constantly. I think for this user, with upto 25 connections, the Netgear router should not cause a considerable performance hit unless he is constantly moving around really huge files on his LAN. With respect to the connection sharing, the external WAN speed is so much lower than the capacity of the LAN, that there should not be a noticeable effect. My 2 cents![/b]

Labchip,
You were complaining about the web-based login for broadnet. Did you overcome the problem? if so, how were you able to do it?
I was thinking that if I get rid of the UTStar modem and put some other modem and have the Xincom do the PPPOe dialing, it would be possible to share the connection across devices.

Thanks.

 

[netfreak]

QUOTE(Labchip @ Mar 13 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]83206[/snapback]
@ netfreak - you're right about the el cheapo routers - my Xincom one though has a pretty pretty quality switch included. But even with some models from D-Link & Linksys - I have had pretty good LAN performance with about 10-15 devices on the network. At our office, we had well over 100 computers on the LAN, and even without a top end router/switch - we got close to 100Mbps connectivity constantly. I think for this user, with upto 25 connections, the Netgear router should not cause a considerable performance hit unless he is constantly moving around really huge files on his LAN. With respect to the connection sharing, the external WAN speed is so much lower than the capacity of the LAN, that there should not be a noticeable effect. My 2 cents![/b]

Yes, it should not matter in terms of WAN speed since it much less then LAN.

Few months back I helped a friend setup WiFi for a media lab that was a startup and were tight on budget. They had issues with Netgear WGR614 not being able to keep up with large Photoshop files being tossed around on LAN. Router stopped handling DHCP requests and such. But they were fine with rebooting the router whenever things seemed to fail.

But the same setup work just fine at my home with a PC / Laptop and two VOIP lines. LAN traffic is nearly zero.

I think he can try with a cheap router to begin with (it costs just ~2k)and if things break router can be replaced/augmented later.

 

[Labchip]

QUOTE(zinxlinx @ Mar 13 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]83214[/snapback]
Labchip,
You were complaining about the web-based login for broadnet. Did you overcome the problem? if so, how were you able to do it?
I was thinking that if I get rid of the UTStar modem and put some other modem and have the Xincom do the PPPOe dialing, it would be possible to share the connection across devices.

Thanks.[/b]

@macboy - Bleah !!! It didn't hold up for the whole day. One of my Alive Status Indicators just gave a failure. I still think I'm on the right track with this approach, but I haven't figured out the exact nature of the Alive Signal and/or the duration.

@Zinxlinx -- I thought I had solved the problem of the web login, but I don't think so now. Macboy had mentioned that the Reliance connection holds for about 6 hours before it logs itself out due to lack of activity. The premise of my solution was to send some sort of an automated ping or other packet from my router through that WAN port to an external host at fixed intervals - so that the connection never remains inactive for more than a set time - thus keeping it always alive. I think the approach will work, but I haven't been able to determine the exact type of Packet to send or the interval. WRT the Reliance DSL modem, I really haven't got the faintest clue if it is replaceable; perhaps someone on this forum knows more about it - but my hunch is that it has some proprietary configuration settings and cannot be replaced by a generic DSL modem - in fact I very much doubt it is even a PPPoE connection; there's nothing that indicates it being PPPoE.

@All - Does anyone have the scoop on the deployment of BSNL's WiMAx service in Pune? Are they offering any beta tests to potential customers? Does anyone have contact info or insider info on this service? TIA

 

[sohamsoham]

QUOTE(netfreak @ Mar 12 2007, 08:25 PM) [snapback]83148[/snapback]
For those many (25 or 253) connections, it is better to go for a Switch then a router.

Configuration can look like:
Dual WAN Router ---> Switch ---> [ PCs + One DHCP Server]
Of course if some router is built to handle large number of connections then this does not apply. But those routers cost way too much.[/b]

RESPONSE: When I am lucky to have a single BB connection in this village 5 km from the local switching station, why would I want a 'dual' wan router? Moreover modem-routers as
Netgear DG834G, for example does all the DHCP service--otherwise what sort of 'routing' will they be doing?
Even with this ~100$ device can give me 4-port rj-45 access, as well as up to 254 minus 4 = 250 wireless access, in principle.

 

[netfreak]

QUOTE(sohamsoham @ Mar 14 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]83310[/snapback]
RESPONSE: When I am lucky to have a single BB connection in this village 5 km from the local switching station, why would I want a 'dual' wan router?[/b]

Of course you don't need a dual WAN router if you have only one WAN connection

QUOTE(sohamsoham @ Mar 14 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]83310[/snapback]
Moreover modem-routers as
Netgear DG834G, for example does all the DHCP service--otherwise what sort of 'routing' will they be doing?
Even with this ~100$ device can give me 4-port rj-45 access, as well as up to 254 minus 4 = 250 wireless access, in principle.[/b]

"in, principle" yes but not in practise.

This router should be more then enough if :

1. Number of PCs is less OR
2. WAN is the ONLY Traffic AND
3. Number of TCP connections is minimal. This device does not have enough RAM to hold a large NAT table] Think about Yahoo / MSN IM, Windows update, anti virus update,few web pages, Email on 250 PCs.

 

[Deleted member 2914]

if u want to logoff using curl then here it is

just make new logoff.bat file in curl folder and place following line in it.

curl -d "confirmed=true" http://www.reliancebroadband.co.in/accountLogoff/home


reply me if it works..
its working on my linux.