[final] ActionTEC 701wg

[karlp at ourldsfamily.com]

> karlp at ourldsfamily.com wrote:
>>>Karl Pearson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Rick Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>karlp at ourldsfamily.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I just upgraded the speed of our DSL link so our users can access our
>>>>>>servers much faster now (it's faster than the T1 at work!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, one of the 'features' of this 701wg is that outbound to
>>>>>>inbound
>>>>>>http connections ALL go to the admin pages of the stupid beast. I've
>>>>>>contacted Actiontec and they haven't responded. I see the actiontec
>>>>>>runs
>>>>>>linux and there's a line:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thttpd -d /usr/www -u root -p 80 -c /cgi-b... (line length cuts off
>>>>>>more)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>SO, we can't access any of the webpages on our server from inside the
>>>>>>network, only from the outside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have any of you seen this and know if there's a way around it? I've
>>>>>>thought of using port 88, but then outside folks would have to know
>>>>>>that,
>>>>>>too, which is something I don't want to deal with or have to
>>>>>> implement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now for a peek inside my personality: I think it's d--- arrogant (or
>>>>>>stupid and short-sighted) of a company to do something like this to
>>>>>>their
>>>>>>users.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm assuming (probably a bad idea) that the Actiontec is the 701wg and
>>>>>that it's your DSL modem or router.  If that's the case, and people on
>>>>>the LAN side can't see web pages hosted on a server that's also on the
>>>>>LAN side, then you've got a routing issue.  Either the default route
>>>>>being given to your DHCP clients is wrong or you've got the wrong
>>>>>netmask that makes your webserver look like it's on a different subnet
>>>>>than the DHCP clients.  That would force the traffic out to your modem
>>>>>or router.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Okay, I've been on the phone with Actiontec and Qwest and have found
>>>>that
>>>>Actiontec has known about the routing issue and have done nothing about
>>>>it. Since I'm an IT director and have installed 3 of these in client
>>>>sites
>>>>for connectivity to our site (so I don't have to mess with their
>>>>internal
>>>>firewall politics) AND since Qwest is Actiontec's largest customer, I
>>>>called Qwest to see if they would go to bat for me. They are pressing
>>>>Actiontec to fix this issue post-haste. I will be getting a call from a
>>>>Qwest manager tomorrow to verify this issue has been escalated.
>>>>
>>>>I spoke to 3 support folks at Actiontec, including a front-liner, his
>>>>manager and then a back-line advanced technical support engineer. The
>>>>manager assured me this would be available in the next flash upgrade.
>>>>Right. The 3rd guy finally admitted they've known for 2 years and
>>>>nothing
>>>>has been done. That's when I called Qwest.
>>>>
>>>>I'm on a wait-and-see and don't-hold-your-breath mode...
>>>>
>>>>Just thought you might like a follow-up. I'll send more if and when I
>>>>hear. I let them know that if I don't hear in a week, I'll be dropping
>>>>them as a vendor for our DSL needs.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the update, Karl.  So it is a routing issue in the firmware,
>>>eh?  And they've known for 2 years?  Sheesh!  That'd put them at the
>>>arse-end of my vendor list!
>>
>>
>> After calling Qwest, I now have a Cisco 678 DSL (DMT capable)
>> router/modem
>> which Qwest sent UPS Next Day Air. And, it's FREE. Okay, the price of
>> the
>> ActionTec ($60). It's refurbished.
>>
>> Funny thing. After my phone call from Qwest with this solution, I got
>> another call from Qwest; different state senior support. This guy told
>> me
>> how I could use the ActionTec anyway, with the use of the DMZ feature.
>> Of
>> course, if you visit the setup page, it warns about doing that because
>> of
>> major security risks. I have multiple ports open on my server, which is
>> safely behind my hardware firewall and has been safe for about 9 years
>> that way.
>>
>> But, the 678 is doing fine and setup was a breeze because hey, I know
>> Cisco.
>
> Glad to hear you got it sorted out.  Actiontec should be heavily
> chastised for not fixing a known bug in 2 years.  They sure won't be
> getting my business anytime soon.

Believe me, I was pretty forceful in my verbal chastisement. Keep in mind
I have managed support teams and understand this arena very well. I was
not like a ranting maniac. I didn't raise my voice but made my points.
They failed. Qwest didn't. I was and am very impressed with how Qwest
handled this whole thing.

Karl Pearson
karlp at ourldsfamily.com