03-24-2012 10:51 AM
Before I got new U-Verse service (Internet & TV) 2 weeks ago, I had a home network set up with a Cisco Linksys E2500 dual-band router. I have a Dell desktop PC running Windows 7 and 10 wireless devices.
I followed another forum members directions pertaining to bridging the 2Wire router and the Cisco router, changing the IP address of the 2Wire router and turning off the wireless function. I set these up so that the 2Wire router was behind the Cisco router. Everything worked just the way I intended until today.
There was a power failure at my home yesterday from an outside source. The 2Wire router and the Cisco router returned to their factory settings for the most part.
Now, I cannot change the 2Wire router's IP address. I have tried it several times and cannot get the router to respond.
There are other parts of the 2Wire router that will not let me change (system password)
Has there been any system changes that would effct the 2Wire router? Should I reset the 2Wire router to it's factory settings and start again?
Thank you for your help.
Solved! Go to Solution.
08-22-2012 7:58 AM
08-23-2012 9:42 AM
I ran a port scan last night...found out that most all ports are blocked...except 80 and 443...I can't connect internally or exteranlly....I may have to get static IPs...(which will be another set of stuff to deal with in terms of firewall, etc) I am not sure that I would know how to set that up in terms of security, etc. Most of my IT career I have dealt with NAT using a sigle IP and class C addresses....Any thoughts?
02-14-2013 9:19 AM
02-14-2013 9:44 AM
07-08-2013 12:00 PM
I recently added my old Cisco/Linksys E1000 router behind my 3801HGV this weekend. The main purpose was to see if my wireless cameras would work because I could never get them to work directly off the U-Verse RG after reconfiguring and trying different things like MAC filtering. They would only work wired but not wirelessly.
My setup is nearly identical in that my E1000 is set to 192.168.2.1 now (instead of 1.1) When I first connected the WAN port of the Cisco E1000 to the LAN port of the U-Verser 3801 HGV, it could not be seen/detected. It was not until the IP address change that the U-Verse saw the Cisco and the Internet came back to the computer that was plugged into the Cisco (and another PC wirelessly connected to the Cisco).
My question is do I really need to enable this DMZ stuff many "router behind router" posts talk about and why? So far everything seems to work ok, internet access, VPN for work, etc and I have not noticed any problems. Unless there is stuff happening behind the scenes cluttering up the network.
07-15-2013 11:55 AM
You shouldn't need to use DMZ unless you do not wish to forward each port or range for whichever applications you are using. Many sites recommend DMZ only as because it allows for all communication and traffic. This could be viewed as a security hazard for businesses so from my perspective it is best to forward each range or port for the applications being used. DMZ is great, but as the meaning implies, it lacks enforcement of any kind.
07-15-2013 4:00 PM
The DMZplus zone basically hands off responsibility to the device in the DMZplus zone. If it handles NAT or stateful packet inspection or something like that, that's fine. If it's just a PC without firewall software, then not such a good idea.
Welcome to the internet boards! Check out our troubleshooting articles below and don’t forget to search the forums - your question may have been answered already!
Service acting up? Click here to troubleshoot now!
© 2017 AT&T Intellectual Property.This link will open a new window All rights reserved. AT&T, Globe logo, Mobilizing Your World and DIRECTV are registered trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.
Congratulations! You earned the Liz badge!