Thank you for your 'FAST' and 'Efficient' response. When I did initially acquire the Actiontec Q1000 device. I initially depressed and held the 'reset button' of course when the device is/was connected to the A/C power source but had kept/held the device back from the attachment of the LAN. For the duration of what I believe to be approximately 30 - 35 seconds. After that I kept the Actiontec Q1000 device off the LAN and 'hardwired' the Q1000 to my laptop via a 'cat 5' Ethernet cable. I then opened the Actiontec Q1000 interface GUI via the Firefox webrowser and within the Actiontec GUI --> Quick-Setup the device was listed under PPPoE ru1020.net <-- So of course that made me think 'why is this device listed under ru1020.net when I had just depressed the reset button for half a minute or more'?. Then I continued and attached the Q1000 device into the DSL service - RJ11 jack that I have outfitted exclusively for the most 'short/easy' DSL entry to this dwelling. Same thing pulled up: ru1020.net on PPPoe I have at this time switched the PPP username to the properly acquired and established account name listed for my dwelling. Thank you for your help and 'Rapid' response, From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 20:48:43 -0600 To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: Re: [tclug-list] DHCP address reservation on Q1000 modem - Question. On Feb 4, 2015, at 8:39 PM, paul g <pj.world at hotmail.com> wrote:Questions - 1a. Is it necessary to keep the above two addresses on the 'DHCP Reservation List' of the Actiontec Q1000 device? Probably not. 2a. I believe I have no devices currently on the LAN utilizing the same 'MAC' address as the above 'DHCP' output has provided. Can I now safely 'remove' the above listed 'entities' from the DHCP Reservation List? Can you confirm you don’t have these on your LAN? Oh 3A has important information - it’s a brand new modem. Confirm anyway. I have tools I use but they’re not Linux apps. 3a. As per last week I was able to return the 'leased' ZyXel c1000z and have noticed by using the newly acquired Actiontec Q1000. Speeds are the same but the device has possible 'leakage' Are you aware of ports being actively left open on the Actiontec Q1000 device by any chance? I’ve never been a fan of the Actiontec modems. They’re pretty cheap and I almost always put a piece of hardware in-between them and my network (like my netgate pfsense boxes). _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tclug-list at mn-linux.org http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20150204/e708e26b/attachment.html>