Monitoring bandwidth behind a router

[danielf]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Ah the routing table entry - I remember..... I would have though that the routing table needs to be updates on the router via a static stub network entry or the like !!!!

Now that both of you have mentioned the website Hmmmmmm - It does look a little fishy !!!!

I thought it looked fishy with someone mentioning 10 gig daily downloads Yesterday. I don't see how anyone would be able to max out 24/7...

So, are there any other people that have received a letter, and if so, can we see a scanned version of it?

[rdhw]

Originally Posted by Kitty

Yes it is running but only logs when the router is not included. as soon as I place the router in MRTG adds nothing to the graph even though it updates it twice a day.

If you have interposed a router between your PC and the cable modem, then you will no longer be able to monitor the Ambit 200, unless you add a secondary IP address in the 192.168.100.xxx subnet to the WAN port of the router. Very few routers targeted at the domestic market can do this.

On the other hand, if you have interposed a router between the family's PCs and the cable modem, you don't need to monitor the cable modem any more: you can monitor the router itself instead (and get separate figures for each member of the family!). You just need a router which supports monitoring by SNMP, or which there are many to choose from.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

I have a feeling the router doesn't like the idea of talking to the modem on 192.168.100.1, think Robin Walker has touched on this with his previous posts on the subject.

To get MRTG to run without the router I had to do Robins workround.

IPconfig gives me this now.

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.100.22
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.2
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

Open to suggestions that can make this work

[rdhw]

Originally Posted by Kitty

To get MRTG to run without the router I had to do Robins workround. IPconfig gives me this now.

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.100.22
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.2
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

If you have made this configuration, and your PC is now behind a router, then this configuration will no longer work, and you will be blocked from accessing the cable modem. You must remove this extra IP address if you are behind a router. The extra IP address trick is only for the situation where the PC is directly connected to the cable modem.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by rdhw

Since when? Are you sure? Other customers have MRTG working on SACMs, so I don't think SNMP is blocked.

Was a hazy memory or someone mentioning something like that in relation to the uncappers. Something like ntl use SNMP to monitor your bandwidth, and people were playing with the SNMP reporting to give false reading to ntl's monitoring software so as not to get caught. I have probably remembered incorrectly, and the problem with Kitty is the router, as you have now explained

[Frank]

Originally Posted by rdhw

you can monitor the router itself instead (and get separate figures for each member of the family!). You just need a router which supports monitoring by SNMP, or which there are many to choose from.

Let's hope that all the ntl-recommended routers do have this feature, otherwise there are going to be some very angry cutomers

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Keyser

Let's hope that all the ntl-recommended routers do have this feature, otherwise there are going to be some very angry cutomers

The linksys I have can't do that but it can allow the SACM to be monitored if NTL allow us to acces SNMP like blueyonder. We are not wanting to cheat anyone just access and monitor the bandwidth. really we all want the same thing just NTL don't want to allow us the tools to do it. Customers in N TL areas can get this to work its those living like me in EX C&W areas that can't. So NTL sort us out a way to work around the blockage.

[hjf288]

I think im gonna have to setup NAT routing instead of Windows ICS seen as i cant get my bandwidth monitoring working AND my other computers accessing the internet.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by hjf288

I think im gonna have to setup NAT routing instead of Windows ICS seen as i cant get my bandwidth monitoring working AND my other computers accessing the internet.

ICS uses NAT to route the trafic... Its the same thing.......

Can you not just monitor the packets on the nic. thats connected to the cable modem ?

[Florence]

IPconfig give me this now and pinging the modem is hopeless...

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.2
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1

C:\Documents and Settings\>ping 192.168.100.1

Pinging 192.168.100.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

My router cannot be monitored and linksys has no plans to upgrade the firmware to allow this.. My SACM is blocked by NTL.. I know my router will allow the SACM to be monitored as it is already doing it with a telewest customer. So come on NTL techies find a workround or get the bossess to allow access the SNMP. My best suggestion I have already been told over PM wil not happen and that is N TL cancel the Cap!!!!!! I shall keep my options open but be carefull NTL other services are looking more attractive than you now unless you get your act together sort out the network stop the high bonuses and put it back into the network......

[hjf288]

No.... The modem via SNMP has accurate reports of upstream, downstream and its ethernet interface.... Plus MRTG Produces nice pretty graphs that i can save and then produce a month by month graphical report on usage....

Yes ICS Uses NAT BUT It doesnt like Robins fix, therefore i quit using ICS and manually configure the system and routing.....

BTW That site looks amateur, not really like something thats NTL produced.. Im not convinced until i see the letter :/

[rdhw]

Originally Posted by Kitty

The linksys I have can't do that but it can allow the SACM to be monitored if NTL allow us to acces SNMP like blueyonder.

It's not a question of NTL allowing or denying anything: it's just the way the Ambit 200 works, strictly in accordance with IP standards. If Blueyonder had Ambit 200s, it would be the same there. If you want to correspond with a device in the 192.168.00.xxx sub-net on the same LAN segment as you, then you need an IP address in the same sub-net on which to receive replies. Some brands of cable modem fudge the issue so that users can receive off-subnet replies, but Ambit don't, and they are not obligated to break the standards to achieve this.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by rdhw

It's not a question of NTL allowing or denying anything: it's just the way the Ambit 200 works, strictly in accordance with IP standards. If Blueyonder had Ambit 200s, it would be the same there. If you want to correspond with a device in the 192.168.00.xxx sub-net on the same LAN segment as you, then you need an IP address in the same sub-net on which to receive replies. Some brands of cable modem fudge the issue so that users can receive off-subnet replies, but Ambit don't, and they are not obligated to break the standards to achieve this.

Everything I have tried has failed I would be gratefull of you have any ideas.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by danielf

No disrespect to those discussing the problems of monitoring downloads behind a router, but I hink would it be a good idea to set up a separate thread for it?

I agree if I was a mod I would split it out and make a second thread about monitoring the bandwidth..

But they are both linked as if there wasn't the cap then members wouldn't be wanting to monitor the bandwidth....

[Comfortably Num]

Just use this ,http://www.netlimiter.com/ ,instead.