Search Results

Search found 690 results on 28 pages for 'routers'.

Page 1/28 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • BSNL Routers: Default Username and Password To Access Admin Interface

    - by Gopinath
    Problem You have BSNL broadband set up at home and everything is working fine. But one fine day you something went wrong or you would like to change the properties of your BSNL modem by logging in to the admin user interface of your modem. What is the default username and password to login to BSNL Router user interface? Solution Here are the default username, password to access your BSNL router admin interface URL: http://192.168.1.1/ Username: admin Password: admin Note: The above username and password are the default ones that works with all the BSNL routers until unless someone has changed them. This article titled,BSNL Routers: Default Username and Password To Access Admin Interface, was originally published at Tech Dreams. Grab our rss feed or fan us on Facebook to get updates from us.

    Read the article

  • What are some of the best wireless routers for a price-conscious home power-user?

    - by Alain
    I'm extremely dissatisfied with the 'popular' choice for routers in homes and small offices. They are expensive (upwards of 60$), lack a great deal of useful configuration options, and seem to need to be restarted quite often. (Linksys comes to mind). I've been on the market for a good router lately, and slowly collecting a set of requirements I feel good routers should meet. Maximum number of TCP/IP connections. - This isn't something I see any routers advertise, but in terms of supporting torrent applications, I've been screwed by routers that support less than 20 here. From what I understand a fairly standard number is 200, but there are not so expensive routers that support thousands. Router configuration menu - Most have standard menu's that let you set up basic things like your wireless network encryption settings, uPnP, and maybe even DMZ (demilitarized zones). An absolute requirement for me, however, are routers with good enough firmware to support: Explicit Port forwarding Assigning static local ips to specific mac addresses, or at least Port forwarding by MAC address Port, IP and MAC filtering Dynamic DNS service for home users who want to set up a server but have a dynamic IP Traffic shaping (ideally) - giving priority to packets from certain machines or over certain ports. Strong wireless signal - If getting a reliable signal requires me to be so close to the router that I can connect an Ethernet cable, it's not good enough. As many Ethernet ports as possible. - Because I want to be able to switch from console gaming to PC gaming without visiting my router. So far, the best thing I've stumbled upon (in the bargain bin at staples) was a 20$ retail plus router. It was meant to be the cheapest alternative until I could find something better to purchase online, but I was actually blown away by the firmware capabilities. It supports defining reserved bandwidth for certain network traffic, dynamic DNS, reserving local IPs for specific MAC addresses, etc. At 2 am when my roommate is killing our Internet with their torrents, I can limit their bandwidth without outright blacklisting them. I have, however, met serious limitations when it comes to network traffic between local machines. It claims a 300Mbps connection, but I have trouble streaming videos from my PC to my console or other laptops wirelessly. It has a meltdown and needs to be reset once in a while (no more than a couple times a month), and it's got a 200 connection limit. There 4 Ethernet ports in the back but I'm pretty sure the first doesn't work. So some great answers to this question would be: Any metrics you use to compare routers, and requirements you have for new candidates. The best routers you've found for supporting home servers, file management systems, high volume torrent traffic, good price/feature ratio, etc. Good configuration advice (aside from 'use Ethernet whenever possible') Thanks for your feedback and experiences!

    Read the article

  • Routers with decent parental monitoring / traffic logging?

    - by antiver
    I'm looking for consumer router / firmware recommendations with reasonably robust remote URL / hostname logging & reporting functionality. Most logging functionality I've seen is terrible - reporting only IP addresses, not rolling up reports or reporting any useful statistics. The logs are also often limited to merely the last few minutes/hours when handling high-traffic loads. Bonus points for providing a screenshot of the log reporting interface!

    Read the article

  • Multiple routers, subnets, gateways etc

    - by allentown
    My current setup is: Cable modem dishes out 13 static IP's (/28), a GB switch is plugged into the cable modem, and has access to those 13 static IP's, I have about 6 "servers" in use right now. The cable modem is also a firewall, DHCP server, and 3 port 10/100 switch. I am using it as a firewall, but not currently as a DHCP server. I have plugged into the cable modem, two network cables, one which goes to the WAN port of a Linksys Dual Band Wireless 10/100/1000 router/switch. Into the linksys are a few workstations, a few printers, and some laptops connecting to wifi. I set the Linksys to use take static IP, and enabled DHCP for the workstations, printers, etc in 192.168.1.1/24. The network for the Linksys is mostly self contained, backups go to a SAN, on that network, it all happens through that switch, over GB. But I also get internet access from it as well via the cable modem using one static IP. This all works, however, I can not "see" the static IP machines when I am on the Linksys. I can get to them via ssh and other protocols, and if I want to from "outside", I open holes, like 80, 25, 587, 143, 22, etc. The second wire, from the cable modem/fireall/switch just uplinks to the managed GB switch. What are the pros and cons of this? I do not like giving up the static IP to the Linksys. I basically have a mixed network of public servers, and internal workstations. I want the public servers on public IP's because I do not want to mess with port forwarding and mappings. Is it correct also, that if someone breaches the Linksys wifi, they still would have a hard time getting to the static IP range, just by nature of the network topology? Today, just for a test, I toggled on the DHCP in the firewall/cable modem at 10.1.10.1/24 range, the Linksys is n the 192.168.1.100/24 range. At that point, all the static IP machines still had in and out access, but Linksys was unreachable. The cable modem only has 10/100 ports, so I will not plug anything but the network drop into it, which is 50Mb/10Mb. Which makes me think this could be less than ideal, as transfers from the workstation network to the server network will be bottlenecked at 100Mb when I have 1000Mb available. I may not need to solve that, if isolation is better though. I do not move a lot of data, if any, from Linsys network to server network, so for it to pretend to be remote is ok. Should I approach this any different? I could enable DHCP on the cable modem/firewall, it should still send out the statics to the GB switch, but will also be a DHCP in 10.1.10.1/24 range? I can then plug the Linksys into the GB switch, which is now picking up statics and the 10.1.10.1/24 ranges, tell the Linksys to use 10.1.10.5 or so. Now, do I disable DHCP on the Linksys, and the cable modem/firewall will pass through the statics and 10.0.10.1/24 ranges as well? Or, could I open a second DHCP pool on the Linksys? I guess doing so gives me network isolation again, but it is just the reverse of what I have now. But I get out of the bottleneck, not that the Linksys could ever really touch real GB speeds anyway, but the managed switch certainly can. This is all because 13 statics are not that many. Right now, 6 "servers", the Linksys, a managed switch, a few SSL certs, and I am running out. I do not want to waste a static IP on the managed GB switch, or the Linksys, unless it provides me some type of benefit. Final question, under my current setup, if I am on a workstation, sitting at 192.168.1.109, the Linksys, with GB, and I send a file over ssh to the static IP machine, is that literally leaving the internet, and coming back in, or does it stay local? To me it seems like: Workstation (192.168.1.109) -> Linksys DHCP -> Linksys Static IP -> Cable Modem -> Server ( and it hits the 10/100 ports on the cable modem, slowing me down. But does it round trip the network, leave and come back in, limiting me to the 50/10 internet speeds? *These are all made up numbers, I do not use default router IP's as I will one day add a VPN, and do not want collisions. I need some recommendations, do I want one big network, or two isolated ones. Printers these days need an IP, everything does, I can not get autoconf/bonjour to be reliable on most printers. but I am also not sure I want the "server" side of my operation to be polluted by the workstation side of my operation. Unless there is some magic subetting I have not learned yet, here is what I am thinking: Cable modem 10/100, has 13 static IP, publicly accessible -> Enable DHCP on the cable modem -> Cable modem plugs into managed switch -> Managed switch gets 10.1.10.1 ssh, telnet, https admin management address -> Managed switch sends static IP's to to servers -> Plug Linksys into managed switch, giving it 10.1.10.2 static internally in Linksys admin -> Linksys gets assigned 10.1.10.x as its DHCP sending range -> Local printers, workstations, iPhones etc, connect to this -> ( Do I enable DHCP or disable it on the Linksys, just define a non over lapping range, or create an entirely new DHCP at 10.1.50.0/24, I think I am back isolated again with that method too? ) Thank you for any suggestions. This is the first time I have had to deal with less than a /24, and most are larger than that, but it is just a drop to a cabinet. Otherwise, it's a router, a few repeaters, and soho stuff that is simple, with one IP. I know a few may suggest going all DHCP on the servers, and I may one day, just not now, there has been too much moving of gear for me to be interested in that, and I would want something in the Catalyst series to deal with that.

    Read the article

  • SIP and NAT routers?

    - by OverTheRainbow
    Hello SIP was not built with NAT routers in mind, and I'd like to get to the bottom of this issue to check what needs to be done on all devices so it works with NAT routers, and understand in what context it just can't be used and I should check more NAT-friendly alternatives like IAX. A picture being worth a thousand words, here's the layout I need to use: http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4077/sipandnatrouters.jpg The PBX server is located in the private LAN behind a NAT router connected to the Internet (I know it'd be easier if it were located in the public network, but this router doesn't support DMZ's so the server has to be in the private network) A couple of (soft|hard)phones are located on the same LAN and connected to the PBX server, along with a PSTN gateway (Linksys 3102 or a Digium PCI card) Remote users using (soft|hard)phones are located somewhere on the Net with dynamic IP's and are also located behind NAT routers I may or may not have control over the local NAT router where the PBX server is located, but I have no control over the remote NAT routers, either because the users don't have the computer knowledge to map ports or because the routers are off-limit (eg. web cafés, hotel LAN's, etc.) Is it possible to configure the PBX server, the (soft|hard)phones, and the PSTN gateway so that the all conversations work fine, no matter the endpoints (POTS caller/local phone, POTS caller/remote phone, local phones, remote phone/local phone)? In which cases may I expect problems, and are there solutions? FWIW, I'm leaning toward using Freeswitch, but I could end up using Asterisk if there are technical advantages to it in this context. Thank you for any info.

    Read the article

  • internet speed and routers are controlled by whom

    - by Ozgun Sunal
    i need to learn two things. each is related to other a bit. The first one is, while our LAN speed is usually 100 Mbps or at gigabit levels(very big compared to WAN speeds), WAN speed for instance DSL connections are far less than this. However, we are able to download huge files at those Mb speeds. Isn't this weird? [my real concern is why WAN speed is lower than LAN speeds] Who controls those routers around the large Internet? (while we, as web clients are connected to Internet, packets travel through those routers to the destination network/s).But, are those routers all inside the ISP network and if not, who controls those large numbers of routers?

    Read the article

  • HTG Explains: Understanding Routers, Switches, and Network Hardware

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Today we’re taking a look at the home networking hardware: what the individual pieces do, when you need them, and how best to deploy them. Read on to get a clearer picture of what you need to optimize your home network. When do you need a switch? A hub? What exactly does a router do? Do you need a router if you have a single computer? Network technology can be quite an arcane area of study but armed with the right terms and a general overview of how devices function on your home network you can deploy your network with confidence. HTG Explains: Understanding Routers, Switches, and Network Hardware How to Use Offline Files in Windows to Cache Your Networked Files Offline How to See What Web Sites Your Computer is Secretly Connecting To

    Read the article

  • how to set up dual wireless routers (G and N) with single broadband connection

    - by user15973
    A local cafe has an 802.11g wireless router attached to either an 8- or 12Mbs broadband connection. Although many customers still have -g devices, an increasing number are showing up with 802.11n devices (e.g. Mac laptops, iPads). The cafe owner is content with his router's area coverage, but he would like for his customers to be able to take advantage of the higher -n download speeds. He could simply replace the -g router with a -n router, but reportedly -n routers slow down considerably when servicing both -g and -n connections. Another option would be to buy the -n router, run an Ethernet cable between the two routers, and (of course) hook up the broadband connection to one of the two routers. Still another option would be to attach an ordinary, wired switch to the broadband connection and then attach both routers to the switch. Aside from the cost issue, what are the tradeoffs of those approaches? Which would you recommend, and why? Is there a better option than the ones I mentioned? Thank you in advance for your advice.

    Read the article

  • Capabilities of business and SOHO routers

    - by Q8Y
    I'm currently studying for the CCNA certifications (especially for Cisco routers and configuration). I know that business routers provide more features than SOHO routers, the processing speed and RAM can be enough. Assume I need to connect a number of users through a network (accessing internet, share files, printers, ...). I have a high speed connection to the internet and I already applied QoS. How can I find out how many users such a single (SOHO) router could handle? In my case I'd attach to it multiple switches until I have the number of ports needed. Would everything work well and smoothly with 50 users? What about 300? At which point would I need a business router instead? If I implemented VLAN here, would it make any difference in the performance? When do I really need to use more than one router? (Both SOHO and business) I'm thinking that I may need them only if I want to increase the performance (instead of replacing the existing one) and if I have multiple locations, so in this situation I need to have multiple routers, right? Put differently: Is there is a need to have another router if my business all in one place?

    Read the article

  • Two Routers - 1 Port Straight to First Router

    - by apples
    At my house we have two Wifi routers one's connected directly to the modem and the other is plugged in down stairs as a second network(Directly connected to the first router) Is there a way that I could make it so that I have the second router have its own network, but have one or two ports that would act as if they were directly connected to the first router? That way I can port forward to devices on the second router. Here are the information about the routers: Router 1 - Linksys WRT54G Running stock firmware Router 2 - Linksys E900 Running Tomato Firmware So to summarize what I'm asking is how would I have two networks from two routers but be able to connect directly to the first router through one of the ports on the second router. Here's a Visio Drawing of what I would like to look like

    Read the article

  • Setting up dual wireless routers

    - by JasCav
    I have two wireless routers (one is the router supplied by Verizon - MI424-WR ActionTek and the other is DD-WRT Buffalo router). I want to set them up so that I have the second router (Buffalo) on its own subnet and two SSIDs so I can put different devices on different routers and so I can put my web server on the first router and put most of my other computers behind the second router for a little extra protection in case of a compromise. From my understanding, I have to hook the two routers together so that the LAN from the Verizon router plugs into the WAN port of the Buffalo router. This is where I get stuck. What settings do I need to look for to setup the Buffalo on its own subnet? Do I need to do anything with the Verizon router, or are the configuration changes done to the Buffalo?

    Read the article

  • Can I connect two routers to one switch?

    - by vanneto
    I want to connect two routers to a switch which will then be connected to a modem. Now as far as I know a switch does not do network translation and this won't work with one IP address. So I bought two addresses at my ISP. Attached is a simple schematic that explains what I want to do. Is there any additional configuration needed on either of the routers (Linksys WRT54GL) to make this work or will it "Just Work"?

    Read the article

  • Extending a home wireless network using two routers running tomato

    - by jalperin
    I have two Asus RT-N16 routers each flashed with Tomato (actually Tomato USB). UPSTAIRS: Router 'A' (located upstairs) is connected to the internet via the WAN port and connected via a LAN port to a 10/100/1000 switch (Switch A). Several desktops are also attached to Switch A. Router A uses IP 192.168.1.1. DOWNSTAIRS: I've just acquired Router 'B' and set it to IP 192.168.1.2. I have a cable running from Switch A downstairs to another switch (Switch B). Tivo, a blu-ray player and a Mac are connected to Switch B. My plan was to connect Router B to Switch B so that I have improved wireless access downstairs. (The wireless signal from Router A gets weak downstairs in a number of locations.) How should I configure Router B so that all devices in the house can see and talk to one another? I know that I need to change DHCP on Router B so that it doesn't cover the same range as DHCP on Router A. Should I be using WDS on the two routers, or is that unnecessary since I already have a wired connection between the two routers? Any other thoughts or suggestions? Thanks! --Jeff

    Read the article

  • How do the routers communicate with each other ?

    - by Berkay
    Let's say that i want make a request a to a web page which is hosted in Europe (i live in USA).My packets only consist the IP address of the web page, first the domain name to ip address transformation is done, then my packets start their journey through to europe. i assume that MAC addresses never used in this situation? are they? First, my packets deal with many routers on way how these routers communicate with each other?, are router addresses added to my packet headers ? Second, is there a specific path router to router comminication or which conditions affect this route? Third to cross the Atlantic Ocean, are cables used or... ?

    Read the article

  • Connection two wireless ADSL routers to share IPs

    - by user35218
    I have two wireless ADSL routers sitting right next to each other, each with his own internet connection. I'd like to be able to connect to a computer that is connected to router A from a computer that is connected to router B, while keeping both routers internet connection individually. i.e. If computer A is connected to router A, it will use router A internet connection, and a second computer, call it B, will be connected to router B, and will use router B internet connection. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • wifi routers and concurrent devices

    - by Joelio
    We have a Linksys WRT54G WiFi router in our office which was working great when we had 5-6 folks. Now on peak days we have 10-15 people, each with a computer, smartphone, etc, and an ooma VOIP device. On average 1-2 times a day I need to go hard reboot the router, and sometimes the border router (Cox-supplied device). I assume this is just because the router cant handle this many concurrent users. So my question is can these consumer routers handle this kind of load? If not, would adding more devices solve the problem, and how close proximity can I put 2 routers without having interference problems (our office area is not that big physically)?

    Read the article

  • Why do most routers not include local DNS?

    - by user785194
    I need to change my firewall/router, and I'd prefer something with built-in DNS to resolve queries on the local subnets. I've got a mixed Linux/Windows system, often with only one computer turned on, and I frequently have problems resolving local names. I don't want to keep a Linux box permanently on just for DNS, and I'd prefer to have DNS in my router appliance, which is always on. I search Google for this occasionally but never find anything. You always get the obvious answers - it's not possible, put everything in /etc/hosts, NetBIOS, dedicated box, etc. So what am I missing? Why don't "cheap" routers let you do this? I'm pretty sure that Cisco kit does this. Almost all cheap routers will let you do MAC address reservation, to let them assign static IP addresses for DHCP. So why can't they simply do DNS as well for everything on the local subnets, just passing through remote domains to the ISP?

    Read the article

  • Setting up Multiple Routers (as Hardware Firewalls) behind a Home Router

    - by Synetech
    I’ve currently got one computer behind a router with built-in firewall functionality, connected to a home cable-modem that has a single Ethernet port and one IP. I’m going to have to set up another computer for the rest of the family to use which of course will need to be connected to the Internet, probably wirelessly since the modem is in my room and the new system would not be. What I would like to do is to get two more small routers with firewall capability and connect each computer to a router, which would in turn connect to the main router which connects to the cable-modem. That way, both systems have a hardware firewall protecting them (particularly the wireless system) and the burden of blocking would be reduced on both the computer CPUs and the main router because the secondary routers would handle some of the workload. I’m trying to find out about the complexities inherent in this design and how I could set it up to work, specifically the IP handling and NAT aspect. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • WinXP workgroup, 3 routers 3 computers

    - by Silvera
    I have 3 computers with WinXP x86, and 3 Cisco 1800 series routers. I'm trying to create a workgroup so that the 3 computers can share files with eachother. They can ping eachother (without any internet connection), and the routers setup is correctly configured (with interfaces, ip adresses, and ports). But none of the computers can see eachother, even though they are on the same network. My first question would be - can it be done the way it is currently configured - and, if yes, how, or can anyone point me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Grandfather’s Tales – Why You Always Plug Directly into the Modem [Humorous Comic]

    - by Asian Angel
    Note: Comic contains some language that may be considered inappropriate. The tale of the troll router, or, how I learned to love plugging directly into the modem [via Reddit] How to Own Your Own Website (Even If You Can’t Build One) Pt 1 What’s the Difference Between Sleep and Hibernate in Windows? Screenshot Tour: XBMC 11 Eden Rocks Improved iOS Support, AirPlay, and Even a Custom XBMC OS

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >