OK, I've read a bunch of threads looking for something specific to my problem, and have had hints, but not specifically. So.....

I currently have an Actiontec gt701-wg DSL modem/router through Qwest. When my traffic is heavy, particularly with bittorrent or p2p (particularly as Ultrapeer), the modem/router more or less dies. Well, I can't ping it or connect to it. A power reset usually takes care of this problem, but not always for long. Sometimes the modem/router will recover after closing the file sharing software.

I was told by a local person who seemed to know what they are talking about, that because this Actiontec is a cheap bit of equipment, it tends to get overwhelmed, and suggested that he and others have found that adding a router relieved the load on the Actiontec and kept the connection up. While theoretically that makes sense to me, all the traffic still goes through the Actiontec, and I have my computer DMZed in anycase (trusting my linux firewall tools), so I wonder if anyone has any insight into this or specific experience.

He suggested a Linksys wrt54g, which bestbuy happened to have on sale (w/rebate) for $50, but they were out till tomorrow. They also had a D-link DI-524 on sale (w/rebate) for $20. So I bought that to try it. I understand the Linksys has better wireless and is more reliable, but that the D-Link is close. Is the Linksys worth the extra $30. I want it to work. (Potentially $20 is not bad if for extra ports and wireless that is sufficiently superior to the Actiontec, which is sh-t). I have not opened the box yet, no reason to destroy a product until I have a reasonable expectation it will serve my needs.

I also read a suggestion in the LQ threads that adding a DNS server to my Linux box will increase the Actiontec reliability, to provide better caching of addresses, since with p2p the nameservers can be continually hammered. I did have the DNS servers set to my ISP WAN addresses, I just changed it to the router address (192.168.0.1). This also seems like reasonable suggestion.

Well, each of these seemed to help, first the DNS, and then progressively, the added Dlink router, but still, when traffic was heavy, the modem would die. I ended up starting up named and setting the primary nameserver to 127.0.0.1. Eventually I got Qwest to give me a new modem, I will see how it goes. At least it has the newer firmware that apparentlly fixes some firmware problems. So far it is working, I will see what bittorrent and the new slackware iso's do to it (the p2p stuff with lots of connections are what seemed to kill the modem).

I set the Acitiontec up with a LAN address of at 192.168.0.1 with a netmask of 255.255.255.0, with a DMZ to 192.168.0.11. The Dlink had a WAN of 192.168.0.11 (obviously), the gateway 192.168.0.1, with a netmask of 255.255.255.192, and a LAN address of 192.168.0.65 (same netmask). All seems to work. My main computer (DMZ'ed, since I feel my security is sufficient) is addressed 192.168.0.77, and whiile I put the netmask at 255.255.255.192, I think that 255.255.255.0 will work (if I am doing this right), because then I can connect direct to the Actiontec if I need to without adjusting thngs. Sound good?

Even with the new modem, it takes about 2 hours of p2p utrapeer activity to kill the modem. The Dlink router certainly adds functionality (reasonable wireless distance) and extra ethernet ports), but does not seem to help the Actiontec. I would like to help the gnutella network as an ultrapeer, but it just seems too much to ask for this poor piece of equipment. Any suggestions for something better that does PPPoA?

I have two more ideas (But really, I am just grasping at straws.):

1) Perhaps setting up the actiontec with a DMZ actually gives it more work, and perhaps only forwarding the ports I really need will prove easier to the modem. (Which I could see if it somehow better shares the load within the actiontec, blocking bogus connections from passing through some weak point).

2) Maybe I can tweek my gnutella client settings in terms of connections etc. to be below the thresholds the actiontec can handle. It must have limitations that I am now exceeding (the modem used to work when I was an ultrapeer, but I know some of the default settings have changed on my client, and I do believe I have messed with my settings as well)

Any suggestions or brainstorming are certailnly welcome.

Hi, I was searching around for some info on passing ports through my actiontec as I have done this but it doesn't seem to be working. I came accross your issue and had some insite you might want to try.

When I first got my actiontec I had heard they were not that great. I wanted the Cisco 678 DSL modem but they are getting harder to find even on Ebay. That there would be a good option if you want to learn about cisco and have a bullitproof DSL Router/Modem. My parents office has that one I got of e-bay 3 years ago and never have to touch it.

Ok, to my point. You can do something interesting on DSL modems. You can tell the Actiontec to be in 1384 bridge mode. Not sure on that number. Basically log into the router and on the advanced setup you can change this. When the modem is in bridge mode it will basically be a dumb box and will just pass the ASDSL line to the ethernet connection. The NAT server will be off, the DHCP will not work.

After doing this you will connect your D-link router, then in the setup on it you will put it in PPPoE mode. Now this may not work as Qwest says they only support PPPoA connections. Thing is I tried it and it worked. In talking to a qwest tech he said a lot of the newer equipment they have will autodetect and switch to PPPoE.

So here you will put your qwest username and Password into the D-link router and it will be the one making the connection onto Qwests network.

I did this with my SMC router as I liked the features in it better than the Actiontec. I recently went to using the actiontec only because I wanted the wireless and don't have another wireless router.

So give that a try and you should solve the problems with the router freaking out as it won't be doing any of the work. Even in DMZ mode it is looking at all the traffic to pass it to the WAN port of the D-link. I think even when a address is in DMZ all the traffic is going through the NAT firewall anyway, it just goes ahead and passes all the ports through... Lot of work for that little box.....


Thanks, Hope this helps.