Anyone else down this morning?

[jane]

Just adding my experience with a TP-Link WD8960N on adsl2+. The internet was down this morning as per the other posts here. All the router reported was a failure to ping the primary DNS server which I had set to OpenDNS. I just changed the router setting back to IDNet (i.e. obtain DNS servers automatically) and the internet came back up without having to reboot. So it was probably a stale session but it had a less drastic solution thankfully.

[Simon]

Isn't this about the time BT work usually starts?  Could this be affecting anyone, from Alf's link above?:

More details
Estimated time to resolve:
Due to suspected Cable Thefts & damage caused by 3rd parties, a small number of our customers in the below areas, may experience a loss of telephone and/or broadband services. We hope to have service restored as quickly as possible and apologise for any inconvenience this may be causing.

Prees- 0194884 ( estimated clear 11/01/2013)
St Fergus- 0177983,01779872,01779875,01779876 (estimated clear 08/01/2013)
Wakefield - 01924 (estimated clear date 09/01/2013).

Otford- 01959522,01959523,01959525,01959526 (estimated clear date 17/01/12)

Midland - 01261 (estimated clear date 11/01/13)
Wanstead - 0208530, 0208989 ( estimated clear date 07/01/13)

Cosham - 02392 (estimated clear date 07/01/2013)
Ballygown - 028975 (estimated clear date 07/01/13)
Bewdley - 0129940 ( estimated clear date 11/01/13)
Barnsley - 012267 (estimated clear date 09/01/13).

https://btbusiness.custhelp.com/app/service_status_consumer/ss_cat/2468,2470

[karvala]

Karvala - During the night do you have anything running on your computer? It looks like a a pattern of periodic but short lived heavy use.

No, that's the mystery of it; the computers are all shut down at night, only the router is left on.  I also operate a security white list by MAC address and check the logs, and definitely no one else is accessing the network at any time, so it's not any activity at my end.

[adrinux]

re: Thanks for the support and welcomes.
As for the suggestions: It's nice to see you're all as much in the dark as me

I remembered something else I'd tried - hooking up the computer directly to the modem and trying a pppoe connection. Both OSX and windows 7 failed to connect that way. At least with the tp-link modem. Will try that with the netgear tomorrow.

What that means though is that the problem can't lay with the wr104nd. There just seems to be this dichotomy between combined-modem-router works and separate-modem-router fails.

fwiw OSX's system.log shows this at connection time:
pppd[821]: PPPoE connecting to service '' [access concentrator '']...
kernel[0]: PPPoE domain init
pppd[821]: PPPoE connection failed, No route to host

Reaching the point where I think I can call idnet support.

[J!ll]

Down again this morning.

[Glenn]

Mine was working fine at 5.30 before I left for work, it looks OK now too.

[andrue]

Mine looks find this morning according to TBBQM.

[Steve]

Adrinux , Have you rechecked your modem settings, obviously it is syncing but not necessarily passing on the connection information. I have used a Draytek 120 previously without issue acting as a PPPOE to PPPOA bridge

[adrinux]

Steve: Repeatedly. I've also, in effect, tried two different modems (the TP-Link modem I was using, and the Netgear DG834 in modem only mode).

Any combination that requires PPPoE to PPPoA fails to negotiate the connection:
Win7 + modem
OSX + modem
tp-link wr1043nd router + modem
and I've tried all of those combos with both modems.

But the old Netgear DG834 combined modem/router which presumably just does PPPoA works. I have no idea why.

I'm missing wireless and gigabit ethernet by sticking with the DG834

Bottom line is the combo of TP-Link WR1043ND wireless router and 8616 ADSL modem have been working fine for over a year, then yesterday they just stopped working - no storms, no power cuts, no software changes, no hardware changes.

I've also tried several different ethernet cables and bypassed the telephone extension cable, so I'm convinced now that the problem lies outside my home network.

(and thanks Andrue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-point_protocol_over_Ethernet#Server_to_client:_Offer_.28PADO.29 was interesting)

[Steve]

As a temporary solution to give you WiFi and gigabit LAN can you use the TP router in 'bridge'  mode. ie DHCP server off, This will give you a gigabit switch, a WiFi access point. The Netgear will provide NAT, firewall etc and WAN input.

[adrinux]

Yep, that's plan C. I'd far rather keep the firewall and routing on the TP in place because it's up to date with my current networking setup. What's on the Netgear is a year out of date. Toying with the idea of putting the TP in the Netgear's DMZ...what other options are there? Static routes?

But really I just want it fixed.

[adrinux]

I'm up!

After another extensive bout of googling and forum post reading yesterday evening I came across a suggestion to switch encapsulation from VC-MUX to LLC when having to use PPPoE (as you do with a separate bridging modem like the TP-Link 8616).

And lo and behold the simple change worked. So now up and running and back to normal! 

Damn annoying I went through 2 days of frustration to figure that out though 

I also have no idea why LLC works and VC-MUX doesn't.

[Simon]

Glad to hear its sorted.