I cant believe theres nothing about setting this up in either the manuals or the FAQ section *scratches head*

anyway ...

since there's no way to enter the IP address of the 120 in the 2820's WAN2 setup, how does the 2820 know where to route the PPPoE stuff to?
Is there some kind of broadcast mechanism for discovery?
If so does it negotiate for each packet? (major overhead here) or is there an initial discovery/negotiation and after that everything gets sent to the correct node? (using MAC address maybe?)

also, can I assume that the DHCP server should be disabled on the 120?

thanks.

Lumbergh ... refer to my post, just above yours. All you need is there. You don't set the IP address of the 120 on the 2820, you do it on the 120 itself. Yes, you need to disable the DHCP server on the 120 - you can't have 2 DHCP servers on the same subnet.

Only downside of the workaround and reason I didn't go for it, is it uses up two of your 2820 LAN ports, and you have to fork out for some patch cables and probably another switch to get back the LAN ports used up.

I ended up binning the V120, in favor of the free O2 router, which I have no issues accessing through the 2820.

V120 turned out to be a waste of money

I did get around to using the method specified by cocospm and it worked a treat. Sorry I forgot to thank you sooner for your help but better late than never so thank you.

sooo ... I set it up as described and it worked as expected - load balancing working as before, access to the 120's web interface so I can check the connection rates etc.


but ...


I've reverted it to the previous configuration just connecting to the 120 via the WAN2 port. why? because the 2820 now sends out a notification email every minute or so with DOS warnings, example:

Code:

2011/04/05 15:08:34 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.210:50001->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=294] 2011/04/05 15:08:45 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.28:51809->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=153] 2011/04/05 15:08:45 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.28:51809->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=151] 2011/04/05 15:08:48 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.28:51809->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=151] 2011/04/05 15:08:48 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.28:51809->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=153] 2011/04/05 15:08:51 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.28:51809->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=151] 2011/04/05 15:08:51 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.28:51809->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=153] 2011/04/05 15:09:04 -- [DOS][Block][trace_route][192.168.0.210:50001->239.255.255.250:1900][UDP][HLen=20, TLen=294]

so it seems that PPPoE does use a broadcast discovery mechanism as I suspected (239.255.255.250:1900 is a multicast "address"), and its generating quite alot of traffic.

we have a cat6 gig network using netgear smart switches, and the 2820 has more than enough processing power so this traffic isnt going to tax the network too badly, but on principle I'm wary of adding yet more multicast just to be able to access the web interface of one device. we have 40+ nodes on our network atm but it could be more than double that by next year if we move to IP phones on our PBX.

If theres no way to avoid the PPPoE discovery multicasting (and I cant see one), I'd rather use another solution to access the 120 via the 2820's WAN2 port.

there must be a simple routing solution to direct HTTP requests to the 120 on the WAN2 port (192.168.0.2) through the 2820 (192.168.0.1) any ideas?