Re: DSL not recognizing the modem...what else is new?

On Jun 7, 10:41 am, The Natural Philosopher <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:31 am, The Natural Philosopher <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
RayLopez99 wrote:
On Jun 7, 9:40 am, Nigel Feltham <nigel.felt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter wrote:
In article <6f185f76-27a3-4db0-8c21-
106dd69b7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, raylope...@xxxxxxxxx says...
Stupid question #2: if I go with the D-Link, I just power it up, plug
the speedtouch DSL modem into the "WAN" port as input, then ethernet
cables from two of the four other ports to my two PCs' ethernet card
ports, right? Then on bootup the PCs should both recognize the DSL
modem, right?  And both can independently surf the internet via the
same DLS modem right? (with a performance penalty I assume for sharing
the same bandwidth of course).
No, the router would replace the modem and connect directly to the phone
Not in this case as from the description it sounds like he has a cable modem
(ADSL modems have phone connection labelled 'Line', cable modems have 'WAN'
ports) which does need a separate ADSL modem/router connected to the WAN
port to work this way (not forgetting to configure the router for
user/password and other connection settings).
Interesting observation.  The D-Link router was given free by
somebody--I did not buy it--and there's a chance that it's a cable
modem router rather than ADSL router?  In any event--at the moment--
it's a moot point since my one PC is running fine using the old ADSL
Speedtouch router with the AsusTech switch.  Now I will go buy a
Ethernet card for the DamnSmallLinux Pentium II and see if it can
reach the internet.
Not much of a power user are you?

Cant tell the difference between dial up and ADSL or cable and ADSL..or
probably a router, modem or a combination of the above.

Its luck for you that Windows was made for idiots.

Stick to it.

Its right up your street.

That part is not entirely Mr. Lopez's fault. The mishandling of the
word "modem" for both DSL and ISDN and ordinary telephone modems, and
the mislabeling of what are ADSL *GATEWAYS* as switches and routers,
has led to some nightmarish confusion for anyone trying to sort out
help requests..

however no one I know refers to cable or ADSL modems as 'dial up'

I still don't know what he purports to have, he talks about DSL which to
my knowledge NEVER connected to a serial port, with COM1, etc, which to
my knowledge are totally inadequate speedwise to run a cable or DSL
modem even if they  had compatible interfaces.

His best bet  would be either us a dial up modem, or a PCMCIA ethernet
card and a proper router/modem combo,

If anything he says is true..

It is perfectly reasonable BTW to refer to an ADSL interface as a modem.
But not as a dial up modem.

He went screwing around with the telephone port "modem" settings and
connections, confused by the name "DSL modem". If he didn't pop up
with the insults now and then, it would be more understandable and
we'd be more tolerant of the mistake. And it is not an unheard of
mistake: many "DSL modems" should actually be called "gateways",
because of their sophisticated network features. So now he's, wisely,
using a hardware "modem".

Most "DSL modems" also support a built-in switch for local
communications, NAT to provide a separate internal, nonroutable IP
address or addresses and an externally routable and pingable IP
address. That external IP address may also be non-routable: that
prevents you from running public web servers and FTP servers without
getting your ISP to connect NAT services from the outside world to
your private machine. So pinging your machine inside your house can be
awkward from outside: that's what addresses like 10.*, and 192.168.*
are used for internally.

Also note. The "Ethernet card" is a PCI card: I thought Mr. Lopez's
machine was a laptop? In any case, "Linux 2.2" drivers are for the
Linux 2.2 kernel. Linux is up to 2.6.33: Damn Small Linux should be
well beyond the 2.2 kernel and the need for add-on drivers, unless the
distribution is very old and small in order to be compatible with the

If it's necessary, there should be a "Makefile" and/or compilation
instructions to go with that source code file, and installation
instructions as well. Read those first.