Problem with the Internets (cable modem)

JohnnyCache

Something is causing my cable modem to just kind of . . . bind. Like a digestive system full of rich, creamy nacho cheese.

Resetting my modem cures the problem, as does releasing and renewing my IP, but it happens again maybe...every 90 minutes?

It makes it kind of bitch to sit in the queue for Garona, the only sever my stupid ass friends will play on, for three hours.

It's a PC, with updated windows xp, I've turned off all the firewalls and such to elimnate them as factors.

Who has thoughts? You prize in this contest of fixing is a big hug.

KMFurDM

I had a similar issue with my Comcast cable modem when I was using them. The only cure I was able to find was replacing the modem.

I went through two of them until I got one that would work for more than a few months without the need for constant resetting.

Then I moved to FiOS.

Menthol

Have you cloned the MAC address?

Iconoclysm

Sounds like a software issue rather than a modem problem if resetting your IP fixes the issue.
This kind of problem is usually caused by a firewall blocking the automatic renewal of your IP address. Try enabling the XP built in firewall and then uninstall any other software firewall you have installed and see if the problem is then resolved.
I'm assuming a whole heap of things to come up with this theory, so if this doesnt work post as much detail regarding your network setup as you can to aid diagnosis.

JohnnyCache

Menthol wrote:

Have you cloned the MAC address?

I have not.

To Iconoclysm: I'm not running another software firewall. Infact, I'm not running one at all right now.

I have noticed the issue seems worse when using bitorrent for transfering the many uncopywritten large files I use as a part of my legitimate business.

KMFurDM

Try lowering the global maximum number of connections to something like the 100~200 range with your bittorrent client of choice.

Menthol

JohnnyCache wrote:

Menthol wrote:

Have you cloned the MAC address?

I have not.

Well, if you're behind a router, I would try that. Some cable companies, particularly comcast, are total cunts about it.

this is the basic, simplest way to do it. It's on the linksys site, but I imagine the process is about the same on all routers.

Here.

mspencer

It's also possible that your cable modem (really a router, but EVERYBODY says cable modem so I will too) is vulnerable to a certain kind of malicious traffic. There is lots of random malicious traffic that hits any Internet connection -- nobody is targeting you, they are targeting everybody -- and if your cable modem or router is vulnerable to it, this might cause it to hang or otherwise have problems.

One way to fix the problem is to get a different cable modem or router, like other posters have suggested. There may be another fix though.

Routers have replacable software, usually called 'firmware', and you may be able to visit the manufacturer's web site and download new firmware. It's possible that the manufacturer knows about this vulnerability and that their newest firmware has already fixed the problem. If you apply this firmware, that might fix the problem. (If it doesn't, I'd consider getting a different router.)

Consider also: I have a Cisco 678 DSL router -- but it doesn't perform NAT. (It can but I tell it not to.) I have a block of static IPs (209.180.104.200 through 209.180.104.207), so packets destined for any of those IP addresses are all sent to my router. Because my router doesn't do DHCP and doesn't do NAT, there is no connection table. But I still had the problem described by the original poster: one day the router started needing to be restarted about every week -- and then a few times a week. I'm sure now there are enough zombied PCs that people can scan the entire Internet several times a day now -- but I didn't let it get that far. I updated my router's firmware, and that solved the problem.

naporeon

For the purpose of clarifying your otherwise decent advice RE: NAT and such:

Cable Modem != Router

mspencer

There seems to be some question about 'cable modem'. Generally this issue doesn't matter -- lots of people say cable modem even though it's not really correct, so everybody knows what you're talking about when you say those words.

If like most people you don't care about this difference, you can skip the rest of this post.

The term modem comes from 'modulator/demodulator' and was used in the 1960's to describe the Bell 103, long before changes in law allowed D.C. Hayes to create and release his own modem in the late 70's. Essentially a modem encodes (modulates) digital data as an analog signal, for example so it can be transmitted over an analog phone line; and it also interprets (demodulates) analog signals back into digital data, for example so an analog audio signal sent by another modem over a phone line can be received.

A router, on the other hand, is a different kind of networking device. A router helps two different networks communicate.

For example, a Cisco 2600-series router might have one Ethernet port connected to a company network and one high-speed serial port connected to a DSU that talks to a DS1 (T1) from the phone company. This is a router that connects two different network types together, according to how it's configured and what is on its routing table.

Some simple home Linksys routers connect two different Ethernet networks together. They have one port marked 'WAN' or 'Internet', and that's one Ethernet network. They have one or more ports that are usually numbered, and that's another Ethernet network. The router will route packets from one network to the other according to its configuration and routing table.

That product you linked, which the manufacturer calls "SURFboard® SB5100 External Cable Modem", is also a router and not a modem. It's a router because it has one port that connects to a cable company network (via coax) and one or more ports that connect to an Ethernet network. This router will also route packets from one network to the other according to its configuration (usually controlled by the cable company) and routing table.

You might be thinking "did he just say this thing is not a modem, even though the product name says 'modem' right there? Is this guy claiming to know more about what this device is called than the manufacturer does?" In a really pedantic comic-book-guy sense, yes I am -- but remember also that this difference doesn't matter to normal people, so it's not worth making a big deal of.

This device is not a modem because it doesn't modulate or demodulate, and it does route. Sure, cable-company-owned coax carries analog signals -- but only on certain frequency bands. There are other frequency bands used for digital data, same as how DSL (digital subscriber line) leaves the low-frequency analog sound alone and transmits data using high-frequency digital signals. Since this "cable modem" doesn't need to modulate or demodulate digital data into analog signals, it's not a modem. Also because this "cable modem" is routing packets from one network type to another -- watching packet headers, checking packet destination addresses against an internal routing table and retransmitting packets on the destination network only when appropriate -- it IS a router.

So why did Motorola's product development and/or marketing departments go along with naming this router a "cable modem"? The term "cable modem", while technically incorrect in a pedantic sense, is still in common use and that's what everybody calls it. If someone has been (incorrectly) told that they need to buy a cable modem, and they see this product is (correctly) advertised as a cable router, they will think it's not what they need and they will not buy it.

So even though my (mostly suppressed) comic-book-guy-like pedantic self says "it's not a cable modem, it's a cable router" Motorola is doing the right thing labelling it a "cable modem", because that's what nearly everybody thinks it's called and that's the name that will best sell the device to consumers.

(See? Never give a computer science grad student / former LAN administrator an excuse to be pedantic. :-) )