[Kok-Yong Tan <ktan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I expected, MegaPutz was at fault:  They'd changed my VPI/VCI circuit 
numbers out from under me, from 0/35 (the default) to 0/40 at the DSLAM. 
 This was proven when the technician showed up today with a brand new 
ZyXEL P660R-F1 ATU-R (a.k.a. CPE or DSL modem) which allowed changes via 
its webpage instead of some special piece of software only available to 
OEMs.  When he plugged it in, the ZyXEL P660R-F1 also wouldn't connect 
with the default VPI/VCI of 0/35.  But then he checked the configuration 
with a software tool only available to MegaPutz technicians and noticed 
that the idiots at the CO were sending data down 0/40 instead.  Once he 
reconfigured the P660R-F1 for a VPI/VCI of 0/40, my link-no-surf issue 
instantly disappeared and my connection was back up again.  Instantly. 
No delay.  Like there was no problem whatsoever.  Total time spent?  15 
minutes.  That included the introductory conversational pleasantries.

And the worst of it?  MegaPutz now wants to charge me multiple $$$ for a 
"truck roll" plus the cost of the new modem despite having caused the 
issue in the first place ("we need to charge any time we send a 
technician out even if it's our fault and your modem is just old instead 
of plain broken").  Even when all they'd had to do was to revert the 
circuit to 0/35 instead of the 0/40 they had set it to (the VPI/VCI 
numbers are virtual circuit numbers).  A 2-minute job.  Maybe 5-minutes 
if they stopped to scratch their butts.  If they knew what they were 
doing, that was (they'd told me they escalated this trouble ticket to 
Tier 2, NOC Operations and then the duty Network Engineer but everybody 
just came back with "it's a broken CPE").  Something they should've 
noticed when I sent them screenshots of the old Broadxent Briteport's 
setup screens which prominently displayed the VPI/VCI as 0/35 and not 
0/40 that they had set the DSLAM card to.  And the only "upside" from my 
being down for 11 days while out at Sharkfest?  A measly $33 credit for 
the problem they caused in the first place. Since they bought out 
Speakeasy (which I was an original customer of and whose Tier 1 techs 
were the equivalent of everybody else's Tier 3 techs), MegaPath's 
constant cost cutting truly shows in the quality of their staff (their 
field technicians are different because they're subcontractors so there 
are good ones and bad ones).

#MegaPathSucks

On 6/18/14 17:25, Jamie O. Montgomery wrote:
> True. With the two types of DSLAMs we have we either associate the
> static IP with the port or the mac address of the CPE. The IP wouldn't
> work anywhere else.
>
> Jamie Montgomery | Comporium
> Network Facilities Engineering | Engineering Associate II
> www.comporium.com
> jamie.montgomery@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments
> thereto are confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from
> disclosure, and are intended for the use of the individual or entity
> named above. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and
> any attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
> recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail and
> destroy the original message, attachments, and all copies.
>
> On Jun 18, 2014 2:17 PM, Aaron Wasserott <aaron.wasserott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Some ISPs will still use PPP even though you have static assignments.
> This gives them an easy way to lock accounts for non-payment in their
> RADIUS server, instead of having to shut down the PVC or DSLAM interface.
>
> *From:*wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Jamie O.
> Montgomery
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:59 AM
> *To:* Community support list for Wireshark
> *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-users] Using Wireshark for a DSL "link no
> surf" problem
>
> PPPoE is used for authentication. If you have a static IP, they know who
> has it and you don't need authentication. PPPoE would be the termination
> point for the address, but since it will reside on your firewall, the
> modem needs to bridge the dsl network to the Ethernet network on the
> public side if the firewall
>
> They give you a /24 because they'd be burning up more IPv4 addresses
> giving you a smaller subnet. Other static IP customers use addresses in
> that subnet along with you.
>
> *Jamie Montgomery | Comporium*
>
> Network Facilities Engineering | Engineering Associate II
>
> www.comporium.com <http://www.comporium.com/>
>
> jamie.montgomery@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jamie.montgomery@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> /The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments
> thereto are confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from
> disclosure, and are intended for the use of the individual or entity
> named above. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and
> any attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
> recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
> error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail and
> destroy the original message, attachments, and all copies./
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:34 PM, "Kok-Yong Tan" <ktan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ktan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     No, the DSL modem is bridging, not routing.  I've been assigned two
>     static IPs (although they've given me a /24 net mask!!!) and my
>     firewall is assigned one of them.  The firewall is connected
>     directly to the DSL modem by Cat6 patch cable.  The other IP is
>     unused (I use it for testing VPN configurations).
>
>     I'm not sure but since the Broadxent Briteport is a PPPoE modem, I
>     assume PPPoE.  But the tech says that's not correct (WTF?).  And he
>     can't explain what they use.  Sigh.
>
>     --
>
>     Reality Artisans, Inc.
>
>     #   Network Wrangling and Delousing
>     P.O. Box 565, Gracie Station
>
>     #   Apple Certified Consultant
>     New York, NY 10028-0019
>
>     #   Apple Consultants Network member
>     <http://www.realityartisans.com <http://www.realityartisans.com/>>
>
>     #   Apple Developer Connection member
>
>     Cell: (646) 327-2918
>
>     #   Ofc: (212) 369-4876
>
>     On Jun 17, 2014, at 22:13 , Pedro Tumusok <pedro.tumusok@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:pedro.tumusok@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Well if the tech can see stuff, its not what I thought might be the
>     problem, which was PVC settings.
>
>     But does your modem get an IP address, ie is it setup as a router or
>     does your computer get the ip address?
>
>     Are you using PPPoA/PPPoE etc?
>
>     On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:frnkblk@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     Some Comtrend modems can do a port mirror of the WAN (DSL) side.
>
>     Frank
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:wireshark-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of
>     Kok-Yong Tan
>     Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:53 PM
>     To: Community support list for Wireshark
>     Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Using Wireshark for a DSL "link no surf"
>     problem
>
>
>      > On Jun 17, 2014, at 14:28, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>      >
>      >> On 06/17/2014 08:42 PM, Kok-Yong Tan wrote:
>      >> Is it possible to use Wireshark to troubleshoot a DSL "link no surf"
>     problem?  The ISP insists it's a CPE issue but the problem only started
>     after their Tier 1 tech monkeyed with the DSLAM and/or the CPE
>     (remotely) in
>     some manner.  I find it suspicious that the problem was intermittent
>     packet
>     loss until they tinkered, whereupon the problem became a "link no surf"
>     issue (i.e., there's Layer 2 connectivity but zero Layer 3 traffic
>     passing).
>      >
>      > Depends on what you can trace in the CPE, as in, how close to the DSL
>     interface.
>      > Otherwise you'll need capture hardware on the DSL....
>      >
>      > Good luck,
>      > Jaap
>      >
>
>     I can get up to the DSL modem itself.  In hindsight, I'm thinking
>     this isn't
>     going to be of much use and the only way to debug this is with capture
>     hardware on the DSL side as you suggested.  Drat.
>     --
>     Sent from my iPad2 with greater chance of typographical, grammatical and
>     other disasters.  Your indulgence is even more humbly requested.
>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list
>     <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
>     Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>                   mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>
>     --
>     Best regards / Mvh
>     Jan Pedro Tumusok
>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list
>     <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
>     Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>     mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list
>     <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
>     Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>     mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>               mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature