From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

I was upgrading my mum's Plusnet router from a PN Hub One to the new Hub
Two that they had sent her.

Because Plusnet hard-code the user's WAN username and password into the router, it was as simple as unplugging the PSU and Ethernet cables from
the old router and plugging them into the new one (OK, swapping one PSU
for the other as well).

But I noticed a "funny". Because of the shape of her house, she has a
Linksys wireless access point in another part of the house, linked to
the route by Ethernet, to give good wifi coverage (either from the
router or from the AP).

And this access point was not being detected as being connected to the
router, even though the AP was displaying a Link light and the Traffic
light was flickering. I eliminated the cable by moving the AP into the
same room as the router and connecting it by the supplied Ethernet
cable. Still no joy.

So I tried plugging the old router in to the new one (*), using one of
the old router's normal LAN sockets or else the WAN socket. Still no
hint that the new router could see the old one as being plugged in.

(*) Wondering whether I could use it as an AP, if I turned off its DHCP.

After a lot of faffing around, something made me try the original config
again - Linksys AP in its proper location connected by long Ethernet
cable to router.

And it suddenly began to work: I could ping the static address that I'd configured in the AP yonks ago (for some reason that I've long
forgotten, I couldn't let the router's DHCP allocate an IP to the AP)
and devices which were connected to the AP's wifi worked perfectly.
Despite all this, the router *still* didn't report the AP as being
connected ;-)

Other devices (two PCs) that were connected by Ethernet were correctly reported by the router.


Has anyone seen a case of one or more devices being plugged into a
router and yet the router fails to report that they are present?


Moral of the story: don't believe everything that a router tells you,
and don't assume that a "not connected" device is actually not
working... I wasted ages chasing a problem when the device was actually working fine, even if the router thought otherwise...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

NY wrote:

[snip]

And it suddenly began to work: I could ping the static address that I'd configured in the AP yonks ago (for some reason that I've long
forgotten, I couldn't let the router's DHCP allocate an IP to the AP)
and devices which were connected to the AP's wifi worked perfectly.
Despite all this, the router *still* didn't report the AP as being
connected ;-)

Possibly this router only "knows" about things it has issued an IP
address to?

Moral of the story: don't believe everything that a router tells you,
and don't assume that a "not connected" device is actually not
working... I wasted ages chasing a problem when the device was actually working fine, even if the router thought otherwise...

--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

NY wrote:

Has anyone seen a case of one or more devices being plugged into a
router and yet the router fails to report that they are present?

Sounds like you needed to wait for ARP entries to timeout (usually just
5 minutes)?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 23/06/2026 in message <111erka$2i11g$1@dont-email.me> Graham J wrote:

NY wrote:

[snip]

And it suddenly began to work: I could ping the static address that I'd >>configured in the AP yonks ago (for some reason that I've long forgotten, >>I couldn't let the router's DHCP allocate an IP to the AP) and devices >>which were connected to the AP's wifi worked perfectly. Despite all this, >>the router still didn't report the AP as being connected ;-)

Possibly this router only "knows" about things it has issued an IP address >to?

I think that's a good bet. I have been swapping the roles of my PCs (3 of which have fixed IP addresses) and the Plusnet Modem 2 maintains its cache even after a power cycle so I would RDP into a machine from my laptop and
end up all over the place. In the end I learnt to power down all PCs, go
into the modem and manually remove them, then power up.

My new Omada combined DSL/LTE modem has a trick of its own, if nobody
talks to it for a while (say overnight) it says sod this for a game of soldiers and goes to sleep. When I go back to the laptop in the morning
it's decided it's not connected to a network so turns off file sharing.

Bring back cocoa tins and string!
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
When you think there's no hope left remember the lobsters in the tank in
the Titanic's restaurant.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 23/06/2026 21:51, Graham J wrote:

NY wrote:

[snip]

And it suddenly began to work: I could ping the static address that
I'd configured in the AP yonks ago (for some reason that I've long
forgotten, I couldn't let the router's DHCP allocate an IP to the AP)
and devices which were connected to the AP's wifi worked perfectly.
Despite all this, the router *still* didn't report the AP as being
connected ;-)

Possibly this router only "knows" about things it has issued an IP
address to?

Now there's an interesting theory. Why didn't I think of that? It's a
bugger if you have any devices that have static IPs.

I like routers that have separate LEDs for each Ethernet socket and
which give "link present" and "traffic occurring" indication.

The router looks a bit primitive compared with my trusty TPLink which
allows me to define address reservation (ie MAC-to-IP mapping) so a
given device always gets the same IP - useful if it's a
network-connected printer which connects by IP rather than by a name
that is resolved by NetBIOS or some other naming service. Address
reservation is always better than static IP because it means that you
can plug the device temporarily into a different LAN and it will still
work without the possibility of IP clashes or wrong subnet - it will get
a random IP that works, when it's on the "foreign" network. Or else it
will get a well-known IP that works, when it's on the "home" network.

I can't even remember why the AP needed a static IP.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband


Jeff Gaines wrote:

My new Omada combined DSL/LTE modem has a trick of its own, if
nobody talks to it for a while (say overnight) it says sod this for
a game of soldiers and goes to sleep.

Does it have a feature named something like "green ethernet" enabled?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 23/06/2026 22:10, NY wrote:

The router looks a bit primitive compared with my trusty TPLink which
allows me to define address reservation (ie MAC-to-IP mapping) so a
given device always gets the same IP - useful if it's a network-
connected printer which connects by IP rather than by a name that is resolved by NetBIOS or some other naming service. Address reservation is always better than static IP because it means that you can plug the
device temporarily into a different LAN and it will still work without
the possibility of IP clashes or wrong subnet - it will get a random IP
that works, when it's on the "foreign" network. Or else it will get a well-known IP that works, when it's on the "home" network.

I can't even remember why the AP needed a static IP.

Also is the static IP and netmask that you gave to the Linsys even valid
on the new LAN?
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 23/06/2026 23:36, Brian Gregory wrote:

Also is the static IP and netmask that you gave to the Linksys even valid
on the new LAN?

Yes. The static address is 192.168.1.x with netmask 255.255.255.0 and
the router's DHCP is set to allocate addresses in 192.168.1.2-253 (.254
is the router's own IP).

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 23/06/2026 23:36, Brian Gregory wrote:

Also is the static IP and netmask that you gave to the Linksys even valid on the new LAN?

Yes. The static address is 192.168.1.x with netmask 255.255.255.0 and
the router's DHCP is set to allocate addresses in 192.168.1.2-253 (.254
is the router's own IP).

Well that's a **bit** dodgy as the router might allocate 192.168.1.x
itself. You should put fixed/static IP addresses outside the DHCP
allocated range.
--
Chris Green
-+
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On Wed 24/06/2026 10:55, NY wrote:

On 23/06/2026 23:36, Brian Gregory wrote:

Also is the static IP and netmask that you gave to the Linksys even
valid on the new LAN?

Yes. The static address is 192.168.1.x with netmask 255.255.255.0 and
the router's DHCP is set to allocate addresses in 192.168.1.2-253 (.254
is the router's own IP).

I don't know what it is now but BT routers used to have the DHCP address
range as 192.168.1.64-253 which leaves plenty of space for fixed
addresses between 2 and 63.

I would suggest it is also a good idea to replace 1 in the third
quadrant with a far different number such as for example 19 or even 247.
This will just make it that tiny bit harder for the scroats to scam you.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 21:38:51 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Because Plusnet hard-code the user's WAN username and password into the >router,

That doesn't sound right. What would happen if you changed the
Plusnet password just after a new router had been dispatched?

I think you'll find that the username and password is sent by an
ISP to the router using TR-069 which is capable of doing a lot
more besides.
--
Roger
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 24/06/2026 in message <111h3c9$367jk$1@dont-email.me> Woody wrote:

On Wed 24/06/2026 10:55, NY wrote:

On 23/06/2026 23:36, Brian Gregory wrote:

Also is the static IP and netmask that you gave to the Linksys even valid >>>on the new LAN?

Yes. The static address is 192.168.1.x with netmask 255.255.255.0 and the >>router's DHCP is set to allocate addresses in 192.168.1.2-253 (.254 is >>the router's own IP).

I don't know what it is now but BT routers used to have the DHCP address >range as 192.168.1.64-253 which leaves plenty of space for fixed addresses >between 2 and 63.

Plusnet's modem 2 does that.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
We chose to do this not because it is easy but because we thought it would
be easy.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 24/06/2026 19:03, Roger wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 21:38:51 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Because Plusnet hard-code the user's WAN username and password into the
router,

That doesn't sound right. What would happen if you changed the
Plusnet password just after a new router had been dispatched?

I think you'll find that the username and password is sent by an
ISP to the router using TR-069 which is capable of doing a lot
more besides.

Ah, maybe that's how it's done: if the router is identified by its MAC address, the correct username/password can be sent to it to allow it to connect.

I've not actually heard of TR-069 before, but "remote management" would
seem to be ideal for the task.

I can't remember what happens if the WAN password is changed on
Plusnet's "portal". Does the modified password get sent to the router or
is it necessary to go into the router's web interface and change the
password there to match the one on PN's server? AFAIK my parents never
changed the WAN password from the one that PN allocated to them.

I'm with PN as well, but I don't use their router. I use a TP-Link one
which has more configuration capabilities such as giving proper WAN xDSL
stats (sync speed, noise margin, attenuation), allowing reserved WAN IPs
for certain devices, allowing port forwarding. It also has "proper"
status LEDs to show that the router is powered up, that it is booted,
that it has a DSL carrier, that it is logged in, and has a separate LED
for each Ethernet port - easier to see those than to go into its web interface.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 24/06/2026 in message <111hfqc$3a97d$1@dont-email.me> NY wrote:

I can't remember what happens if the WAN password is changed on Plusnet's >"portal". Does the modified password get sent to the router or is it >necessary to go into the router's web interface and change the password >there to match the one on PN's server? AFAIK my parents never changed the >WAN password from the one that PN allocated to them.

The original User Name/Password are entered in the router by PN but are editable so easily changed by the user if necessary.

The SSID and WiFi password are the same.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 24/06/2026 21:48, NY wrote:

On 24/06/2026 19:03, Roger wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 21:38:51 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Because Plusnet hard-code the user's WAN username and password into the
router,

That doesn't sound right. What would happen if you changed the
Plusnet password just after a new router had been dispatched?

I think you'll find that the username and password is sent by an
ISP to the router using TR-069 which is capable of doing a lot
more besides.

Ah, maybe that's how it's done: if the router is identified by its MAC address, the correct username/password can be sent to it to allow it to connect.

The router's serial is associated with the Plusnet account at point of fulfilment/shipping. Similarly, the associated broadband access
credentials are populated in the router management system alongside the
serial number.

The router is configured with a common username out of the box (setup@plusdsl.net, I think); when it is installed, it connects to the broadband network using this common set of access credentials and
queries the management platform. The management platform then overwrites
the default credentials with those specific to the user and restarts the Internet connection.

I've not actually heard of TR-069 before, but "remote management" would
seem to be ideal for the task.

I can't remember what happens if the WAN password is changed on
Plusnet's "portal". Does the modified password get sent to the router or
is it necessary to go into the router's web interface and change the password there to match the one on PN's server? AFAIK my parents never changed the WAN password from the one that PN allocated to them.

The Plusnet systems will amend the record on the management platform,
the management platform will 'ping' the router, the router will call
into the management platform, the management platform will push the new credentials to the router and restart the Internet connection.

So yes, all taken care of in the background, /assuming the router is
online at the time/.

I'm with PN as well, but I don't use their router. I use a TP-Link one
which has more configuration capabilities such as giving proper WAN xDSL stats (sync speed, noise margin, attenuation), allowing reserved WAN IPs
for certain devices, allowing port forwarding. It also has "proper"
status LEDs to show that the router is powered up, that it is booted,
that it has a DSL carrier, that it is logged in, and has a separate LED
for each Ethernet port - easier to see those than to go into its web interface.

The Plusnet router supports LAN IP reservations and port forwarding.
--
Bob Pullen
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 25/06/2026 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 24/06/2026 in message <111hfqc$3a97d$1@dont-email.me> NY wrote:

I can't remember what happens if the WAN password is changed on
Plusnet's "portal". Does the modified password get sent to the router
or is it necessary to go into the router's web interface and change
the password there to match the one on PN's server? AFAIK my parents
never changed the WAN password from the one that PN allocated to them.

The original User Name/Password are entered in the router by PN but are editable so easily changed by the user if necessary.

Not quite that simple. I found that if I edited the username/password,
they got reset fairly quickly to the ones allocated by PN, so it wasn't possible to use a PN router on a non-PN DSL connection. Interesting that
the resetting protocol worked even over non-PN.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

NY wrote:

I found that if I edited the username/password,
they got reset fairly quickly to the ones allocated by PN, so it wasn't possible to use a PN router on a non-PN DSL connection. Interesting that
the resetting protocol worked even over non-PN.

Bob has previously said that on request, Plusnet will remove a router's
serial number from the TR-069 database.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 25/06/2026 14:40, Andy Burns wrote:

NY wrote:

I found that if I edited the username/password, they got reset fairly
quickly to the ones allocated by PN, so it wasn't possible to use a PN
router on a non-PN DSL connection. Interesting that the resetting
protocol worked even over non-PN.

Bob has previously said that on request, Plusnet will remove a router's serial number from the TR-069 database.

Useful to know. I'll remember that.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2