[Cialug] Cisco 678 ADSL router.

[Claus]

On 7/11/2005 9:51 AM, Dave Weis wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, David Champion wrote:
> 
>> Claus wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2005 10:22 PM, Dave Weis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, bofh at visi.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For just plain PnP DSL, it's not bad.
>>>>> However, I'm doing a bit more with transparent rfc1483 bridging to 
>>>>> a--for
>>>>> now--linksys vpn router.  The lack of a serial port for monitoring 
>>>>> what's
>>>>> happening with the connection is just driving me insane.
>>>>
>>>> You can telnet to the actiontec with username/password of admin and 
>>>> poke around. It's running Linux. The web interface also shows some 
>>>> of the info.
>>>
>>> I didn't think the actiontec supports bridging.  Am I wrong or has 
>>> the firmware changed since I looked at it?
>>
>> Something I'm planning to do Real Soon Now(tm) - I have the white 
>> Actiontec that requires the goofy wireless card, but I have a 
>> perfectly good d-link router / AP... so I was going to set the 
>> Actiontec to put the d-link in it's DMZ, and use the d-link for 
>> everything else.
>>
>> Not 100% sure this will work - there is the potential that going thru 
>> 2 routers will cause issues with certain protocols, but I'll give it a 
>> try.
> 
> 
> They do still support briding fine, I've got a couple clients on other 
> ISP's that use them. You can still give it a 192.168 IP for administration.
> 
> I don't know if the dmz thing will work, have to try it.
> 

I don't know much and that's why I'm wary.  The DSL modem even in 
bridging mode is unprotected and thus I like the 678, since you can only 
access via the serial port.

I had a very brief encounter with the Actiontech a couple years ago and 
noticed that you have to connect via the web to configure it.  Very bad 
for security, especially since it's in front of my firewall.  I also 
recall that disabling the web administration makes it pretty hard to do 
any configurations after that.  Way to painful to use IMHO.

   Claus