Travel Router

[JayCeeDee]

From my days with TT years ago, when I also ditched their router for a better Netgear one, the login is a mixture of your email/name/telephone number, password was TT’s version too, but they didn’t withhold it like Sky do, so just ask them.

[Dave Rice]

There are no credentials required. With or without the white box it’s set up the same way, a VDSL MPoA dynamic IP connection.

The difference is with the white box you assign one of the ethernet connections as the WAN port rather than the RJ11.

EDIT – to clarify, I’m talking TT and this is my connection. Other ISPs may use different protocols. BT I know needs a name / pw but it is generic.

EDIT 2 here’s a BT PPPoE / PPPoA setup.

[blacklion1725]

I have a router with a separate  BT “white box” (an ECI or Huawei modem). My credentials (BT Business) go in the router not the white box. When my (old) router was playing up I connected my laptop direct to the white box and had to enter the credentials (BT) in the Network Connection setup on the laptop. If there’s anything hard-coded in to yours (Duke) maybe there’s a way to recover it – done it a few times for Sky Hubs using Wireshark.

[JayCeeDee]

Dave – I see a site visit to North Wales in your future?? – you could earn a living out of this, you know!!??

 

If you’re going to reply with an emoji, please make sure you get it ✌the right way round!

[Richard]

I wonder about ISPs and their usernames and passwords. I use my own box and it has my original details. EE went mad and sent me own of their box a while back and it had totally different credentials, it worked but was less capable of meeting my network set up, reserved IP addresses and restricted allocations, etc., so I have only used it as a switch and sometimes AP – it does not give great coverage.

[Dave Rice]

The white box doesn’t contain any credentials, I know of no way to access them. AFAIK it just presents the VDSL as an Ethernet connection.

They were a stop gap until VDSL modems became common in routers. When you get a VDSL router there is no point in keeping them. All it does it use up an Ethernet port.

[JayCeeDee]

I’ve just been looking around and found THIS. Presuming this is now in effect there must be an easy way to connect if OR aren’t replacing faulty white boxes.?

[blacklion1725]

Dave Rice wrote:

The white box doesn’t contain any credentials, I know of no way to access them. AFAIK it just presents the VDSL as an Ethernet connection. They were a stop gap until VDSL modems became common in routers. When you get a VDSL router there is no point in keeping them. All it does it use up an Ethernet port.

Dave I totally agree in principle. That is the reason I plumped for the Asus DSL-AC68U a while back – in practice though the VDSL side of that device was very poor. Liking the Asus firmware options that is why I dug out the Openreach modem (white box) and went for the Asus RT-AC87U – which hasn’t skipped a beat. The white box is an extra plug (mains) socket but the router has a dedicated WAN port so it doesn’t lose an ethernet port.

If they (Asus) did a reliable VDLS modem router with support for DD-WRT/Merlin/Tomato etc firmware I’d bite their hand off.

[Dave Rice]

I’m amazed Asus have screwed up the VDSL side, even the cheapest xDSL router I’ve bought has been OK in that department.

The DrayTek Vigor 130 does the same job and it’s a true bridge so you need a PPPoE or PPPoA device after it. This allows you to then use the likes of a Synology RT1900ac  router which is the dogs doo-dahs for USB drive sharing but is Ethernet only.

[keith with the teef]

Dont forget: The Gin R using some kind of mobile networking device. Take out the networking device and stop the Gin from reaching the Atrium.

Ref:Deus Ex ,opening campain. 🙂

[Bob Williams]

I have mentioned my TP-Link 9980 router before, but currently I have Plusnet’s own VDSL Router, Hub One, which is working OK although I would prefer the 9980. I have to wait until Openreach have connected our new closer Cabinet and improved my miserable Download speed.

In a previous Plusnet incarnation, I had an ADSL TP Link 1043ND and an Openreach/BT modem which had to be replaced 3 times before one worked: it was a truly horrible experience. Engineers were drinking our coffee regularly! The 1043 was 10/100 only and the introduction of the 9980 was a blast for me: I needed no modem and I got 4x Gigabit LAN ports.

Dave, your last is interesting: would the Synology RT 1900 work with a TP Link 9980? Would it give me any improvements?

TY for advice, Cheers, Bob.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Dave Rice]

It depends what you want to cure Bob. If you need better file sharing i.e. a small file server you’d be better getting a dedicated NAS to add to your network as the cost would be about the same and the result would be better.

If you were starting from scratch the Synology router might make some sense (it has a lot of the technology from the Synology NAS).

[Richard]

A couple of points that have held me back from taking further interest in a fibre to a distant cabinet offer.

1) Will the ‘Fibre ‘presentation still use the same internal wiring from the BT demarcation point to the current router access point?

2) I currently use my own router which uses the historic user name and password, a new ISP router has different data. How much does this matter and would the old credentials still work?

Both routers come with a set of suitable ports.

[Dave Rice]

1. yes it’s still the same copper from the green cabinet to your existing BT socket. Nothing changes at your end.
2. the authentication method is very different, as are the transmission settings. The router has to be VDSL capable (you won’t get a white box these days). Anything that says “x”DSL means it can do ADSL and VDSL.

Most routers worth buying these days are xDSL and can deal with an RJ45 or Ethernet presentation. There are exceptions, usually aimed at the business world, that are Ethernet only and the Synologys fall into this category. If you wanted one of these you’d need a VDSL modem like the Vigor 130 to do the hardware business, the authetication would still be done by the router.

This is all I need to configure on my Vigor 2762 to get my FTTC physically working.

Which gets me this

But doesn’t get me an internet connection. That is what the previous screenshots were about. That’s why the physical connection and authentication can be provided by two different boxes. However you’d need a very good reason these days to use two boxes.

[Richard]

Thank you Dave that is now made clear, I think!

 

[Bob Williams]

Dave Rice wrote:

It depends what you want to cure Bob. If you need better file sharing i.e. a small file server you’d be better getting a dedicated NAS to add to your network as the cost would be about the same and the result would be better. If you were starting from scratch the Synology router might make some sense (it has a lot of the technology from the Synology NAS).

Thanks Dave. I have had a Zyxel nsa 310 for about 3 years now, the 2TB is about 40% full, use it regularly for backup images of my desktop, SWMBO’s lappy and No.2 gson’s desktop. Never used it as a file sharer, always intended to do that and will have to take a look at it. I store my music, photos and videos in a separate folder on the Hdd, with another backup to an external Hdd. I am a bit OTT maybe, but once lost everything to a virus and never forgot it.

Perhaps I am file sharing, without actually realising it? What I would like to do, when Plusnet/Openreach connect me to the new cabinet, is sort out the network.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[blacklion1725]

Dave Rice wrote:

I’m amazed Asus have screwed up the VDSL side, even the cheapest xDSL router I’ve bought has been OK in that department. The DrayTek Vigor 130 does the same job and it’s a true bridge so you need a PPPoE or PPPoA device after it. This allows you to then use the likes of a Synology RT1900ac router which is the dogs doo-dahs for USB drive sharing but is Ethernet only.

They really did Dave – here is the forum link – a real dog’s dinner and a real shame. One consolation prize (I’d still rather have one box doing it all) is that tinkering and rebooting the router doesn’t affect the WAN connection and so doesn’t/shouldn’t cause speed to get negotiated down. The router that replaced it (RT-AC87U) is stellar – wifi covers the whole house – the Ubiquiti AP you recommended way back serves the bottom of the garden and an incredible distance beyond! It is wall mounted and most people think it is an Alarm! Would be streaming the cricket through it now if it wasn’t so gloomy here.

[Richard]

Keeping well away from the original topic, it now appears that my existing devices are less promising than I hoped. One has gigabyte ports, but its fibre handling is no longer on spec, the other has, or appears to have the fibre capability, but falls short in the port department with slow 100 GB ports only. So it is wet towel and dark room time to decide if I want the hassle of change or not. The stand alone modem looks the more tempting offer if I do jump, though the internet speed gain might not be all that worthwhile, would there be a great benefit from a three times data rate? I am not sure.

However, thank you Dave for helping me to firm up my thought processes.

[Dave Rice]

The 100mb router isn’t a total loss, it’s quick enough for any FTTC connection you get. Neither is it likely to hold up any wireless N networking by much, if at all. Streaming video will be no problem.

It really depends on what devices you have, how they connect and what you need them to do. I have wired NAS boxes that are capable of a maximum 800mbps and the newer laptops have AC WiFi so it makes sense to have a Gigabit switch as the heart of my network and an AC capable AP.

But all that does is reduce the time my backups and any large file transfers take, it doesn’t make any difference to streaming or surfing the net. There are a lot of wireless devices here so a robust WiFi solution makes sense. To me its worth the expense and I decided separate boxes were the way to go.

When it’s just me and the Mrs in a downsized house with a couple of laptops that will probably change.

[Richard]

Yes you are right, it is certainly more than fast enough for internet by a wide margin, it is just the PC backup and interconnect with local devices.

I am still wondering what I will do; one benefit for fibre connection is that it allows also additional capacity for my wife’s and my mobiles phones should we ever do much with them when out. However, neither currently use more than a tiny proportion of our existing capacity so it might not be worth while.

[Author]

Posts