Comments on: Qwest DSL Installation With Actiontec M1000 http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/ A place for Google to index my learnings Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:55:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: eprosenx http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-10449 eprosenx Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:15:51 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-10449 Hmm, what you describe should not be impacted by having a reverse DNS entry or not. The type of reverse entry I am referring to is a real in-addr.arpa entry (i.e. 1.2.2.4.in-addr.arpa. for 4.2.2.1 as an example) out on the open internet (not an internal network thing). The reason a reverse DNS entry is required is for outbound mail to certain domains. I believe Comcast and AOL are two of the prime offenders that require some kind of reverse DNS entry to exist for a host that sends them mail or else they will bounce it (or refuse to accept it). For inbound mail to work you need an "MX" record pointed at an "A" record that points to your IP address. Good luck! P.S. Its worth noting that a lot of ISP's block port 25, so perhaps your getting caught up in that? If you have another host you can login to somewhere else on the internet go to a shell prompt and type "telnet <ipaddress> 25". If the screen clears and you get a black screen then a TCP connection worked. If it fails to connect then perhaps Qwest is blocking port 25, or your router is not forwarding the connection properly. -Eric Hmm, what you describe should not be impacted by having a reverse DNS entry or not. The type of reverse entry I am referring to is a real in-addr.arpa entry (i.e. 1.2.2.4.in-addr.arpa. for 4.2.2.1 as an example) out on the open internet (not an internal network thing).

The reason a reverse DNS entry is required is for outbound mail to certain domains. I believe Comcast and AOL are two of the prime offenders that require some kind of reverse DNS entry to exist for a host that sends them mail or else they will bounce it (or refuse to accept it).

For inbound mail to work you need an “MX” record pointed at an “A” record that points to your IP address.

Good luck!

P.S. Its worth noting that a lot of ISP’s block port 25, so perhaps your getting caught up in that? If you have another host you can login to somewhere else on the internet go to a shell prompt and type “telnet 25″. If the screen clears and you get a black screen then a TCP connection worked. If it fails to connect then perhaps Qwest is blocking port 25, or your router is not forwarding the connection properly.

-Eric

]]> By: charles bretana http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-10448 charles bretana Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:05:09 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-10448 Why is a reverse dns entry required to run a mail server? Are you talking about internal private network dns entries (for internal servers)? or are you talking about reverse dns for my public domain name? I have new 12 MBps Qwest DSL running through ActionTec pk5000 with ports 25 and 443 forwarded to my internal Ms Exchange Edge and Mail OWA servers respectively... I know the 443 port forwading works because I can get to the OWA web page from outside.. But no mail I send to myself (like from GMail), is reaching the Exchange server... Is this because of not having reverse dns set up properly somewhere? Why is a reverse dns entry required to run a mail server? Are you talking about internal private network dns entries (for internal servers)? or are you talking about reverse dns for my public domain name?

I have new 12 MBps Qwest DSL running through ActionTec pk5000 with ports 25 and 443 forwarded to my internal Ms Exchange Edge and Mail OWA servers respectively… I know the 443 port forwading works because I can get to the OWA web page from outside.. But no mail I send to myself (like from GMail), is reaching the Exchange server… Is this because of not having reverse dns set up properly somewhere?

]]> By: Purgo http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-3509 Purgo Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:44:48 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-3509 I had qwest service but then moved and it's not available in this area. Is there a way I can configure my m1000 modem to work on verizon's service? In other words what are the settings I need to change the m1000 to and where do I find what those settings are on verizons network? I had qwest service but then moved and it’s not available in this area.
Is there a way I can configure my m1000 modem to work on verizon’s service? In other words what are the settings I need to change the m1000 to and where do I find what those settings are on verizons network?

]]> By: Charles Miller http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-3033 Charles Miller Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:41:34 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-3033 <a href="#comment-58" rel="nofollow">@Jason</a> I am working with my vendor and Qwest technical support to do exactly the setup that you mention. Put the M1000 in transparent bridging mode and put the PPPoE configuration in PIX 501. Did you have any gotchas when you configured yours. In router mode the firewall works fine, but not in transparent bridge mode. Qwest does not even see PPPoE request being sent. @Jason
I am working with my vendor and Qwest technical support to do exactly the setup that you mention. Put the M1000 in transparent bridging mode and put the PPPoE configuration in PIX 501. Did you have any gotchas when you configured yours. In router mode the firewall works fine, but not in transparent bridge mode. Qwest does not even see PPPoE request being sent.

]]> By: eprosenx http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-556 eprosenx Sun, 17 May 2009 19:58:25 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-556 Yeah, that's a pretty good price. Qwest has promotions running on their DSL service at I believe $15 a month for 1.5 meg for 12 months, but static IP's would be extra. It might be worth asking how high a speed circuit they could provision you now (with newer chipsets in the DSLAM's and modems). It is possible that since the last time you ordered service that they put in a new DSLAM at your node sitting right next to the one you are currently off. Do you have any concept for where your DSLAM is? Which CO are you out of? http://www.qwest.com/residential/internet/broadbandlanding/ It is also worth noting (as I am sure you know) that if you get service from SpiritOne or Qwest you are still being served off the same DSLAM and backhaul from that DSLAM to Qwest's ATM cloud. The service differentiators for a third party ISP are: 1. Customer Service, 2. Extra features (like static IP's), 3. Quality of upstream ISP's and if they run over-subscribed on their ISP's, 4. If their PPPoA concentrators are over-subscribed and dropping packets at certain times of day. #4 above is a little-known item to many people. When your circuit is terminated at your ISP across Qwest's ATM cloud it probably comes in a DS-3 to your ISP's router/concentrator. If you have a bunch of 7 meg DSL lines on the same DS-3 it does not take too many to cause packet loss. -Eric Yeah, that’s a pretty good price. Qwest has promotions running on their DSL service at I believe $15 a month for 1.5 meg for 12 months, but static IP’s would be extra. It might be worth asking how high a speed circuit they could provision you now (with newer chipsets in the DSLAM’s and modems). It is possible that since the last time you ordered service that they put in a new DSLAM at your node sitting right next to the one you are currently off. Do you have any concept for where your DSLAM is? Which CO are you out of?

http://www.qwest.com/residential/internet/broadbandlanding/

It is also worth noting (as I am sure you know) that if you get service from SpiritOne or Qwest you are still being served off the same DSLAM and backhaul from that DSLAM to Qwest’s ATM cloud. The service differentiators for a third party ISP are: 1. Customer Service, 2. Extra features (like static IP’s), 3. Quality of upstream ISP’s and if they run over-subscribed on their ISP’s, 4. If their PPPoA concentrators are over-subscribed and dropping packets at certain times of day.

#4 above is a little-known item to many people. When your circuit is terminated at your ISP across Qwest’s ATM cloud it probably comes in a DS-3 to your ISP’s router/concentrator. If you have a bunch of 7 meg DSL lines on the same DS-3 it does not take too many to cause packet loss.

-Eric

]]> By: Rob http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-553 Rob Sun, 17 May 2009 19:08:53 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-553 My Qwest DSL costs me $21 a month for the line and my ISP charges me $17 a month for a total of $38 a month. I've been with SpiritOne for over 7 years and have been pleased with their service and outstanding up time over these past years. Since I do many things off my DSL, (DNS, Web, Mail, etc), I am beyond the standard "consumer" grade broadband of just surfing and such. I've been thinking of contacting Qwest to see how much their TCO would be compared to what I have now if they would be willing to redesign the DSL circuit to support a bigger pipe. I don't think that is going to happen. My Qwest DSL costs me $21 a month for the line and my ISP charges me $17 a month for a total of $38 a month. I’ve been with SpiritOne for over 7 years and have been pleased with their service and outstanding up time over these past years. Since I do many things off my DSL, (DNS, Web, Mail, etc), I am beyond the standard “consumer” grade broadband of just surfing and such. I’ve been thinking of contacting Qwest to see how much their TCO would be compared to what I have now if they would be willing to redesign the DSL circuit to support a bigger pipe. I don’t think that is going to happen.

]]> By: eprosenx http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-539 eprosenx Sun, 17 May 2009 07:05:11 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-539 Yeah, you might want to consider checking Clear out if you are otherwise against Comcast. I got to test out a friends Clear service a while back and it actually was the speed advertised (would be faster than your 1.5 meg DSL). You certainly would not get the static IP, or even the ability to use your own NAT (which is a bummer), but if you are looking at basic consumer Internet it may fit the bill. I am curious how ISP's that sell Qwest DSL with their own IP upstream (like what you have) can compete. You can get the same service now from Qwest (even with static IP's and such) for seemingly less than what these other ISP's charge. I actually have been pretty impressed with the Qwest DSL support. -Eric Yeah, you might want to consider checking Clear out if you are otherwise against Comcast. I got to test out a friends Clear service a while back and it actually was the speed advertised (would be faster than your 1.5 meg DSL). You certainly would not get the static IP, or even the ability to use your own NAT (which is a bummer), but if you are looking at basic consumer Internet it may fit the bill.

I am curious how ISP’s that sell Qwest DSL with their own IP upstream (like what you have) can compete. You can get the same service now from Qwest (even with static IP’s and such) for seemingly less than what these other ISP’s charge. I actually have been pretty impressed with the Qwest DSL support.

-Eric

]]> By: Rob http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-520 Rob Sat, 16 May 2009 17:54:00 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-520 I've had Qwest DSL in my house for 6 years and other than some basic maintenance that either my ISP or Qwest has done, it's been a solid connection. Downside is that they STILL haven't updated the remote terminal with a DSLAM so I am stuck at the limiting distance where I can't get more than 1.5 down and 800 up. Clear isn't much of a savings nor are they really any faster than my DSL so that's not much of a faster solution for me. I could get Comcast, but I really don't like them. My ISP (SpiritOne) gives me a static IP, doesn't block any ports and generally has good support. Until Qwest gets fiber out here and installs a remote DSLAM closer to my house, I am stuck with what I have. I’ve had Qwest DSL in my house for 6 years and other than some basic maintenance that either my ISP or Qwest has done, it’s been a solid connection. Downside is that they STILL haven’t updated the remote terminal with a DSLAM so I am stuck at the limiting distance where I can’t get more than 1.5 down and 800 up. Clear isn’t much of a savings nor are they really any faster than my DSL so that’s not much of a faster solution for me.

I could get Comcast, but I really don’t like them. My ISP (SpiritOne) gives me a static IP, doesn’t block any ports and generally has good support. Until Qwest gets fiber out here and installs a remote DSLAM closer to my house, I am stuck with what I have.

]]> By: eprosenx http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-59 eprosenx Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:04:54 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-59 <a href="#comment-58" rel="nofollow">@Jason </a> An excellent point. If you want to use something else to do your NAT (like the Pix 501 mentioned or an ASA) PPPoE can be a good way to go. Of course you are still stuck with the 1492 MTU size limit that way. I just set one up in routing mode with a block of static IP's so I could assign my PIX 515e a real Internet IP but still use 1500 byte MTU's and not have to use the M1000 NAT. -Eric @Jason

An excellent point. If you want to use something else to do your NAT (like the Pix 501 mentioned or an ASA) PPPoE can be a good way to go. Of course you are still stuck with the 1492 MTU size limit that way.

I just set one up in routing mode with a block of static IP’s so I could assign my PIX 515e a real Internet IP but still use 1500 byte MTU’s and not have to use the M1000 NAT.

-Eric

]]> By: Jason http://www.bitplumber.net/2009/04/qwest-dsl-installation-with-actiontec-m1000/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Jason Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:10:33 +0000 http://www.bitplumber.net/?p=225#comment-58 PPPoE comes in handy when you want to just order the single IP but use it on your firewall instead of using NAT on the DSL modem. Most firewalls support PPPoE, so you configure the M1000 in transparent bridging mode then configured the external interface of your firewall for PPPoE, enter your qwest.net username and password, and now you have a public IP on your firewall. I just set up an old Cisco Pix 501 this way on a qwest.net DSL line and the Actiontec M1000 today, with just that configuration. PPPoE comes in handy when you want to just order the single IP but use it on your firewall instead of using NAT on the DSL modem. Most firewalls support PPPoE, so you configure the M1000 in transparent bridging mode then configured the external interface of your firewall for PPPoE, enter your qwest.net username and password, and now you have a public IP on your firewall. I just set up an old Cisco Pix 501 this way on a qwest.net DSL line and the Actiontec M1000 today, with just that configuration.

]]>