Re: Recommendation of ADSL modem

[Greg Thomas <get_(_dot_)_lists_(_at_)_gmail_(_dot_)_com>]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:08:34 -0000, steve_(_dot_)_kersley_(_at_)_keble_(_dot_)_ox_(_dot_)_ac_(_dot_)_uk
<steve_(_dot_)_kersley_(_at_)_keble_(_dot_)_ox_(_dot_)_ac_(_dot_)_uk> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2005 at 13:32, Damian Gerow wrote:
> > Thus spake steve_(_dot_)_kersley_(_at_)_keble_(_dot_)_ox_(_dot_)_ac_(_dot_)_uk (steve_(_dot_)_kersley_(_at_)_keble_(_dot_)_ox_(_dot_)_ac_(_dot_)_uk)
> > [16/02/05 13:16]: : I'd prefer to have the BSD box doing the
> > connection and NAT/firewall : than use an ethernet to ADSL modem.
> 
> > Why?
> 
> Perhaps I've been misinformed/misread or just seen one modem and
> assumed that the others worked the same.
> I had seen that some ethernet-ADSL modems work like single port
> routers and do NAT internally, talking across the ethernet interface with
> an internal address.  My experiences of cheap NAT implementations in
> ADSL routers is not good - stateless UDP traffic between a not-huge
> amount of hosts quickly overflowing internal address tables and
> crashing the router, needing physically unplugging from the power to
> restart.
> 

Yes, you're talking about ADSL routers when what you need is a bridge.
 Unfortunately the marketing doesn't match with accepted networking
terms.  Devices such as the Efficient Speedstream 5260 and 5360 here
in the US are ethernet-ADSL bridges (although the 5260s can be flashed
to become routers).

Greg