Router recommendations

Clint Savage herlo1 at
Fri Feb 2 07:57:07 MST 2007

My response is that I've not used either of the Microsoft routers and
haven't a say there but I will comment on the Actiontec router from Qwest,
however.  The opinion I give is a very poor rating on the Actiontec router.
It appears to have problems keeping any sort of connections for any period
of time.  Originally, I attributed this to Qwest but over the past 8 months
or so of service, I've discussed this with several others who report similar
troubles with the router itself.  Don't use this router unless it's your
only choice is my recommendation.



On 2/2/07, Joe Crown <joecr at> wrote:
> Well let me first warn the people here the two products I'm going to
> mention are not likely to be very popular on this group simply because
> of who made them.
> The Microsoft MN-100 & MN-500 (I don't know about the MN-700 though as I
> didn't support it.).  I also have an Actiontec router from Qwest (it is
> a DSL modem & router so it might not work for you.).  I can have the
> ports different, but I don't know if the responding computer is going to
> work with it.  I'm guessing it would, but it is safer to say I don't
> know.  One last note with either the MN-100 or MN-500 you want the
> firmware version to be either 1.08.003 or 1.11.017.  This is because the
> versions before 1.08.003 had a ton of problems, the 1.09.* versions were
> betas with their own set of problems, & version 1.11.017 was the last
> version they ever released back in October of 2003 not to long before
> they announced they were going to drop the entire line other then the
> MN-740 which is the Xbox wireless adapter.
> Andrew Hunter wrote:
> > As I understand the terms, a public port is the one that the Internet
> > sends to, and the private port is the one (behind the router) that the
> > server listens on.  In my case, I have 2 servers, a Debian
> > general-purpose webserver and a Suse iFolder server, both behind my
> > router, which connects to iProvo.  Both servers listen on port 80 for
> > web requests.  I would like to make it so that if someone requests
> > (that is, a standard port 80 HTTP request), the request is
> > given to the Debian server on port 80.  If someone requests
> >, on the other hand, the request is forwarded to port 80
> > of the Suse server.  I had understood that, in the second case, port
> > 1001 would be called the public port and 80 on the Suse box would be the
> > private port.  My current router will take the and
> > forward to port 1001 on the Suse box.  Despite D-Link's claims, it will
> > not forward to port 80 on the Suse server.  Naturally, I could just
> > change the port that the Suse box listens on, but as the services I try
> > to host on my internal networks increase, that will be become much more
> > complicated, so I would prefer a single point of configuration.  I hope
> > that's all clear... I'm still a bit new to this sort of configuration,
> > and my understanding could be wrong.  Thanks for the responses--
> --
> American Family Association & 30+ Other Groups Call for Boycott of Ford
> Motor Company
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is highlighting three sets of bad
> laws going through Congress right now.
> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony & Symantec
> /*
> PLUG:, #utah on
> Unsubscribe:
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */

More information about the PLUG mailing list