How do i connect ADSL to my 2500 routers?

You will have to get a 1ENET WIC for the ethernet connection and then you will be able to connect you ADSL routers ethernet interface to the Cisco router. Pretty easy to configure if you are familiar with the IOS.

The 2500 series are fixed configuration and don't support WICs. I use an Origo 8400 ADSL router connected to my 2514 via eth1 with no problems.

Pretty hard to configure if your router does not support wic-1enet. Are you sure that this wic can be inserted in 2500 series router that OP has?

The only router a wic-1enet can be used in is a 1700, nothing else.

I have done a bit of research and i dont think that a 1ENET WIC can be used with the 2500 series routers. I am thinking that only 1600/1700/2600 can use the 1ENET WIC.

Do you guys think it would be better for me to buy a new router?

I think that I should invest in another router with two ethernet ports in that case.

What do you think?

As already mentioned, you really need a router with 2 ethernet interfaces. This assumes that you already have (or intend to buy) an ADSL modem/router with an ethernet interface that supports bridge mode.

Your Cisco 2500 must have an IOS that supports PPPoE client as well as enough memory to run it. A Cisco 2514 would be the ideal router for this job if you must use a 2500 series router. If you already have a bunch of

2500's (eg 2501's) you could use 2 routers connected back to back via a serial cable. The ethernet interface of one would connect to the ADSL modem and the ethernet interface of the other would be connected to your LAN. One of the routers acts as the PPPoE client in this case and still needs an IOS (and memory) that supports it.

If you are buying another router just for internet access, a 1605 or a 1720 or 1721 with a WIC-1ENET would be good choices because they can get the job done quietly.

Ok thanks for your help. I have ordered a 1720 with the WIC-IENET. I will let you guys know when i get the equipment and test it. Cheers.

Actually, if you're getting a 1700-series router anyway, why not just order it with a wic-1adsl and an adsl feature set? Then you've got everything you need in one box...

Not sure just how the 800 series "sucks". I've got an 827 with fw/3des, which seems to work just f> I use a cisco 1720 with a wic1 enet. I have been using it for around 2

I use a cisco 1720 with a wic1 enet. I have been using it for around 2 years and it rox.

I think its the best option for DSL for home / study use. the 800 series suck and anything higher would be a waste of cash.

if u need any help add me > Ok thanks for your help. I have ordered a 1720 with the WIC-IENET. I will

I'm with Steven.

ADSL WIC's sell for around $400-$500 here (Australia) on eBay whereas ethernet WIC's are well under $200 from reputable Ebay stores. Mass market ADSL modems can be had brand new for under $100.

I've also seen quite a few 800 series ADSL routers that have been fried by lightning strikes and although I'm not suggesting that an ADSL modem makes a good lightning protector, I feel slightly more comfortable knowing that my router is not directly connected to the phone line.

The other issue is adaptability. When ADSL2+ arrives here next year, I'll simply replace my modem for no more than $100. I could also switch to cable if it wasn't for the fact that the only provider in this town uses a propietary heartbeat scheme to make sure that only home users access their service - but that's another story.

OK i have followed the advice of buying a 1700 router and a WIC-1ENET.

I have played around with the router a while. I connected a cisco switch to the fast ethernet port.

I connected the WIC-1ENET to the D-LINK ADSL Router/Switch.

I configured the e0 (the WIC-1ENET) port as 192.168.1.2, as the D-LINK has the ip address as 192.168.1.1. I connect to the Router 1700 though the console and ping the D-LINK router. It works fine.

Now...From a computer connected to the switch that is connected to the Router 1700, I can ping the e0 port of the 1700 which is 192.168.1.2. I cant ping the D-LINK router however (192.168.1.1).

I dont have any Internet access either. Sorry I had the belief that the Router 1700 would do everything for me quietly.

So what is it that I needed to know about the Router 1700 to allow my network to connect to the internet? I have a home lab of Cisco equipment, and i want everything in the network to connect to the internet. The network as a whole works fine, up until the point getting to the D-LINK.

Thanks for any help.

(By the way, before i ask for help, i try and find the answers for myself. I do lots of research. When i can find what i am looking for then i ask for help.)

Cheers.

Since you can ping the far side of the 1700, you've probably got the network that's connected thru your switch configured properly. (Although it wouldn't hurt to include details of that in your post, so we all know for sure.) Connectivity between 1700/e0 and the dlink indicate that that network is also configured properly. The 1700 has interfaces on both networks, so can easily reach any device on either, and can route a packet from the pc to the dlink. What's most likely happening is that the dlink has no idea how to return the ping to your pc, because it doesn't have a route to the network where the pc resides. You can either configure a static route on the dlink, or run a routing protocol between the dlink and the 1700. Since you're setting up a lab with multiple routers, you probably want to use routing protocols, so the 1700 can inform the dlink as other subnets are added and removed, without needing to manually configure static routes on the dlink. Check your dlink documentation, but I believe most "consumer" brand routers only run rip, so you're pretty-much limited in your choice of protocols, at least between the 1700 and dlink. (From the 1700 to the rest of your stuff is another matter, and gives you the opportunity to redistribute routes between multiple protocols on the 1700.

Reaching the internet from the rest of your network introduces one more level of complexity, which is NAT. Generally, your dlink router would be running NAT (well, actually PAT) to translate all your private "local" addresses into a single public "global" address for internet routeability. Without some minor changes, however, it may only recognize addresses from its own network (192.168.1.0/24) as qualifying to be translated, so traffic from your other networks would pass thru unmodified. (And disappear.) There should be an option on the dlink for selecting additional addresses to be translated, which you will need to adjust to include the scope of all the network numbers you plan to use in your lab setup. Once you've done that, you should be good to go. (Note that you can't fix this by simply changing the subnet mask on the dlink, as that would mis-configure the lan, and prevent it from reaching hosts beyond the 1700. It's a separate item, the equivalent of the acl in a cisco dynamic nat configuration.)