Out of the box, I set up the WRT120N router per instructions from the
manual.
Problems:
1. I need to power-cyle the router every 24 hours for the devices to
identify the hotspot, if I don't, the wired router function is fine,
but wireless function is dead.
2. The "Network Magic" software can't see the DSL modem behing the
router (including the command line ping <modem-ip> won't respond) so
effectively the router has some factory defaults to block certain
ports from the LAN to the DSL modem. However the nodes on the LAN are
able to see the internet (HTML through traffic is fine, SMTP is fine
etc.)
Is this is a known issue with WRT120N? Any firmware upgrades are
suggested? How to change the factory defaults on the port
configurations? If it is easier to exchange for another model that
would be my take instead of upgrades. The manual is a bare-min setup
intructions and I am lazy to look them up online.
Any responses are appreciated.
TIA
The e-mail on the header is a spam filter; please e-mail
rigconsulting2@[nospam]yahoo.com for direct responses.
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:32:48 -0800 (PST), "R I G Consulting, Inc."
<rig_poster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Out of the box, I set up the WRT120N router per instructions from the
>manual.
>
>Problems:
>1. I need to power-cyle the router every 24 hours for the devices to
>identify the hotspot, if I don't, the wired router function is fine,
>but wireless function is dead.
>2. The "Network Magic" software can't see the DSL modem behing the
>router (including the command line ping <modem-ip> won't respond) so
>effectively the router has some factory defaults to block certain
>ports from the LAN to the DSL modem. However the nodes on the LAN are
>able to see the internet (HTML through traffic is fine, SMTP is fine
>etc.)
>
>Is this is a known issue with WRT120N? Any firmware upgrades are
>suggested? How to change the factory defaults on the port
>configurations? If it is easier to exchange for another model that
>would be my take instead of upgrades. The manual is a bare-min setup
>intructions and I am lazy to look them up online.
>Any responses are appreciated.
Try the latest firmware from Linksys. I got stuck with 2 of these at
remote mountaintop sites. Both would hang erratically and loose some
services, much the same as what you're seeing. Reducing the rather
large amount of port forwarding that was configured reduced, but not
eliminated the hangs. I keep them running with a clock timer, that
power cycles the routers twice a day. Yech(tm).
Another hint would be the crummy user ratings on various review sites.
The consensus is that it sucks:
<http://reviews.cnet.com/routers/linksys-wireless-n-home/4505-3319_7-33697852.html>
<http://www.zdnet.com/reviews/product/routers/linksys-wireless-n-home-router-wrt120n/33697852>
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/30900-linksys-cisco-wrt120n-reviewed>
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124344>
NewEgg has 111 reviews, almost all of which say it's a terrible
router.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:59:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
(...)
><http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124344>
>NewEgg has 111 reviews, almost all of which say it's a terrible
>router.
I noticed that one of the review on NewEgg mentioned that the WRT120N
is not "N" certified. That appears to be correct:
<http://certifications.wi-fi.org/pdf_certificate.php?cid=WFA7283>
<http://www.wi-fi.org/certified_products.php>
I think I agree on the ratings...I might swap this for a Belkin
router, any suggestions on what would be good model with Belkin (or)
any other manufacturer model for that matter?
Accessing the router web server at http://192.168.1.1 gives the config
page -- unlike the wired equivalent RT31P2 which I had earlier, this
router has some kind of soft switch for (PPoE) login into the modem
from the router which appears to be a new feature; contrast this with
prior models where once you logged on into the modem then connecting
the router inbetween the server and modem did not require you to learn
or change any settings on the router meaning that the factory defaults
on the modem just let the traffic thro unless you wanted to change
anything! The problem is, I do not know how to turn this feature off,
there is a Status | Login access to this feature on the router's web
onfig page, but it repeatedy fails. The ever first time I setup, I
used the desktop software "network magic" to connect, so effectively
this sw talks to the router to turn on the soft switch to allow
traffic. Now that I have direct access to the router config through
the web page, I thought I am better off, but even the original traffic
is not there now so I have to go back and setup the way I did from the
beginning out of the box.
And power cycle every 24 hrs!
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:12:41 -0800 (PST), "R I G Consulting, Inc."
<rig_poster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I think I agree on the ratings...I might swap this for a Belkin
>router, any suggestions on what would be good model with Belkin (or)
>any other manufacturer model for that matter?
I try not to recommend anything that I haven't tried myself. I have
only a little experience with Belkin. Mostly, their older stuff sucks
primarily because they don't bother doing updates to their firmware
beyond one or maybe two updates to the original release. If there are
bugs, they tend to be permanent. However, I will confess that I'm now
testing a Belkin F5D-8235-4 v2 router.
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833314041>
It won't do all the nifty and tricky stuff that DD-WRT will do, but is
good enough for my office use. Right now, it's moving a 7GB Mac DMG
file via wireless at about 25Mbits/sec. When I switch to 100baseT
ethernet on the target iMac G5, it speeds up slightly to about
30Mbits/sec. Not fabulous, but good enough for 2x2 MIMO. In all, it
seems like a tolerable router.
However, the reason I'm testing it is that my customer complained that
it stalls streaming HD video from his NAS box. I'm simulating his
setup and have not seen any such problems. Since he went to Costco
and bought a newer model Belkin something, I guess this one is now
mine.
>I did locate the cisco online support manual (their out of the box
>manual is only an installation guide)
>http://homesupport.cisco.com/en-us/wireless/lbc/WRT120N
>
>Accessing the router web server at http://192.168.1.1 gives the config
>page -- unlike the wired equivalent RT31P2 which I had earlier, this
>router has some kind of soft switch for (PPoE) login into the modem
>from the router which appears to be a new feature; contrast this with
>prior models where once you logged on into the modem then connecting
>the router inbetween the server and modem did not require you to learn
>or change any settings on the router meaning that the factory defaults
>on the modem just let the traffic thro unless you wanted to change
>anything!
The router does not "login" to the modem. I presume you have a DSL
modem. Since you're stuck with PPPoE, you have two choices. Setup
your PPPoE login in the modem, and setup the router for DHCP on the
WAN(internet) port. Or, you can setup the DSL modem for bridging, and
setup the PPPoE login in the router. Both work.
>The problem is, I do not know how to turn this feature off,
My problem is that you supplied everything except:
1. What you're trying to accomplish?
2. What you have to work with? (i.e. type of service, type of
connection (PPPoE, PPPoA, DHCP, etc, model of DSL or cable modem, etc.
3. What problem are you experiencing? I prefer to supply the right
way to do things, rather than try to determine what you might be doing
wrong.
>there is a Status | Login access to this feature on the router's web
>onfig page, but it repeatedy fails. The ever first time I setup, I
>used the desktop software "network magic" to connect, so effectively
>this sw talks to the router to turn on the soft switch to allow
>traffic.
Remove Network Magic. Products containing superlatives, such as
magic, miracle, amazing, ultimate, advanced, super, etc rarely are as
good as their name suggests. Network Magic tries to take control of
your connection. You can either set things up using Network Magic and
let it GUESS what type of system you're running, or you can get rid
Network Magic, and just follow the instructions on your ISP's web pile
or in the docs for the various devices. Doing both doesn't work.
>Now that I have direct access to the router config through
>the web page, I thought I am better off, but even the original traffic
>is not there now so I have to go back and setup the way I did from the
>beginning out of the box.
The router does not save your "original traffic" whatever that means.
I would not expect it to be there more than a few microseconds after
it is received.
>And power cycle every 24 hrs!
I would think that several hundred bad reviews would be sufficient to
convince you to abandon this router. Every company has its losers and
the Linksys WRT120N is certainly a problem.
First off thanks for tuning in (into my problem), please read response
to
your question.
----------- start quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My problem is that you supplied everything except:
1. What you're trying to accomplish?
2. What you have to work with? (i.e. type of service, type of
connection (PPPoE, PPPoA, DHCP, etc, model of DSL or cable modem,
etc.
3. What problem are you experiencing? I prefer to supply the right
way to do things, rather than try to determine what you might be
doing
wrong.
----------- end quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Getting rid of wired LinkSys router RT31P2 to wireless-N (as you
had nailed it is no
N) WRT120N. Everthing else remains the same. The LAN is connected to
the router, router
to the DSL Modem westell wirespeed A90-210030-40 (if that matters). I
am moving to wireless
so the iPhone etc can use the hotspot.
2. PPPoE
3. Old setup that works: With the wired router RT31P2, there isn't
anything like the router
logging into the modem. The way I usually setup is (a) connect the
Desktop directly to the modem and
login into the ISP to test the ISP connection Logged-on & ON. When
this step is tested
(b) introduce the RT31P2 between the desktop(s) and
modem and connect all the desktops VoIP phone etc to the router. (c)
When required, for example,
incoming NetMeeting request from an associate, open the ports
NetMeeting on both the modem and router.
Or sometimes I just rid of the router and DMZ the IP for the main
desktop into the modem instead of hacking
my memory recalling port numbers. I keep the manuals for both, they
are REAL manuals and written WELL.
New Setup: However in WRT120N it appears the default is for the
router to login into
modem, somehow browsing through the web config I can't turn this
feature off. So I thought
this mandates re-login so supplied the credentials to login thru the
web config so I tried login
it keeps failing. [Note that the moden in already in a LOGGED IN state
and the DSL connection is
on] At this point I rid of the router and connect my desktop directly
to the modem and everything is
fine (to test). I agree I should rid of the "nw magic" sw supplied,
but the thing is, the sw mimics the
login thro the router it fails too, except if I startover (powercycle
router and follow the sw instruction) as if
out of box and it is fine. So everytime I rid of the router and DMZ
with the modem (for whatever reason)
and put the router back for getting other desktops and devices to the
internet, I have a problem, the
router does not connect to the DSL modem and no internet (LAN
operation is fine so the router's
switching is fine)
To sum it up the problem I am experiencing is (1) need to power-cycle
for the wireless to work every 24 hrs
(2) startover the setup whenever I rid of the router and put it back.
When I say startover, following the step by
step instruction as directed by the "nw magic" sw which I want to rid
off. The reason why I suspect it is
using some kind of "soft switch" to turn the router (Not the switch)
ON. I presumed this switch
to be the "login into the modem" mandated by the router web config,
but it may not be. Coz' when
go the web config on the router and login it always fails.
I just put my old RT31P2 back and everything a OK (of course I do not
have wireless) -- until I figure
a solution for this so I can use the wireless feature.
Thanks for tuning in to the problem, answers below your question.
My problem is that you supplied everything except:
1. What you're trying to accomplish?
**** Moving from wired to wireless router. Everything else is the
same. Desktops
connected to router and router to DSL modem (westell wirespeed)
2. What you have to work with? (i.e. type of service, type of
connection (PPPoE, PPPoA, DHCP, etc, model of DSL or cable modem,
etc.
**** PPPoE
3. What problem are you experiencing? I prefer to supply the right
way to do things, rather than try to determine what you might be
doing
wrong.
***** with the old setup, whenever I rid of the router and put it
back, no re-login,
no change to anything. It works like magic -- not really magic, the
router
retains the config saved and restored -- even though power cycled.
***** with new setup 2 problems (1) need to power cycle every 24 hrs
for wireless to work (2) when ever I put the router back after
removing
it does not work, unless I start setup from the beginning using the
"nw magic" desktp
sw. I agree I need to rid of the sw, but it seems to turn on some soft
switch on the
router to connect to the modem (note the LAN switch function is ok,
just no access
to internet) I presumed this switch to be the " login to the modem"
feature on the router
but it is not, the login keeps failing when I try directly on the
router's web config.
This is frustrating since I want to rid of the sw.
I noticed Fry's is now selling Cisco branded routers in addition to
Linksys. As you know, Linksys sucked in the pre-Cisco days. Lots of
complaints on the net. After being owned by Cisco for a while, Linksys
seemed to be OK. Now you show they are selling junk again.
I can verify Linksys customer support is crap. You get the call center
in India and the responses are totally scripted. They won't look into my
router going into an unresponsive state when it gets too much wifi data.
Further, not only is there no new firmware update, but tech support told
me they will only provide new firmware to add a feature. There are no
bug fixes. To add insult to injury, they actually pulled the firmware
from their website, so if for some reason I needed to flash the router,
I'm SOL. The claim was a GPL violation existed in the firmware. Well
spend some freakin' money and get the rights to whatever was violated.
I hate Netgear. Their routers just out and out fizzle. D-Link seems to
be OK for a company that really doesn't design anything. It's all ODM,
just like Belkin, but they seem to have a decent ODM. [I'm only using
D-Link switches, not a wifi router.] A lot of Belkin gear has lifetime
warranties, which I've managed to use thanks to their crappy Chinese
OEM. I will admit Belkin sends you new **** to replace the broken ****,
only after you send them the defective item.
It may be to get a decent router these days, you have to buy the Cisco
branded gear. If the support on Cisco branded gear is in the US, I'd go
that route.
I haven't called D-Link in years, but in the day, their tech support
seemed to be domestic and competent.
In my call to Linksys tech support, it was suggested to first try a
different channel. I refused because that would mean setting up all my
wifi clients again. No amount of insisting I didn't have a comm issue on
the channel I picked would get me past step one on their script. I ran
kismet and knew all the signal strength of my neighbors and the channels
in use.
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:35:05 -0800, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>I noticed Fry's is now selling Cisco branded routers in addition to
>Linksys. As you know, Linksys sucked in the pre-Cisco days. Lots of
>complaints on the net. After being owned by Cisco for a while, Linksys
>seemed to be OK. Now you show they are selling junk again.
I guess everyone has their own perspective, just like everyone loves a
certain brand of hard drive and considers all the rest junk. For me,
Linksys (pre-Cisco) was the best of the lot at that time. Netgear was
also fine, with D-Link solidly bringing up the rear. Other brands,
notably Belkin, didn't even rate a mention, in my book. As for Linksys
complaints on the net, I believe Linksys was by far the most popular
so it stands to reason they would have the most complaints. I'm sure
they also had the most satisfied users.
It's important to note a few things, as well. Every brand has its
stars and its clunkers, so it's not fair or correct to say a whole
brand name is junk. I'm guilty of that, too. Secondly, it can also
make a difference to separate the firmware from the hardware and
evaluate each on its own. If you can run 3rd party firmware such as
dd-wrt or Tomato or one of the other well-liked and well-known
flavors, then it doesn't much matter how bad the original firmware is
because you have an easy way to get around it.
>I can verify Linksys customer support is crap. You get the call center
>in India and the responses are totally scripted. They won't look into my
>router going into an unresponsive state when it gets too much wifi data.
>Further, not only is there no new firmware update, but tech support told
>me they will only provide new firmware to add a feature. There are no
>bug fixes. To add insult to injury, they actually pulled the firmware
>from their website, so if for some reason I needed to flash the router,
>I'm SOL. The claim was a GPL violation existed in the firmware. Well
>spend some freakin' money and get the rights to whatever was violated.
It's news to me that they no longer provide firmware on their website
or that they don't provide bug fixes, so I checked a random model, the
WRT54GL v1.1. While a quick glance didn't reveal multiple firmware
versions, the latest version was there and its release notes had a
fairly extensive list of bug fixes and nearly no new features. So much
for what they told you.
<http://homedownloads.cisco.com/downloads/WRT54GL_v4.30.15_FwReleaseNotes.txt>
>I hate Netgear. Their routers just out and out fizzle. D-Link seems to
>be OK for a company that really doesn't design anything. It's all ODM,
>just like Belkin, but they seem to have a decent ODM. [I'm only using
>D-Link switches, not a wifi router.] A lot of Belkin gear has lifetime
>warranties, which I've managed to use thanks to their crappy Chinese
>OEM. I will admit Belkin sends you new **** to replace the broken ****,
>only after you send them the defective item.
I have no experience with Belkin other than I've replaced a few dozen
Belkin routers with Linksys models over the years. Usually it was
because the Belkin had died, but more so lately it has been because
the customer wanted to go wireless.
>It may be to get a decent router these days, you have to buy the Cisco
>branded gear. If the support on Cisco branded gear is in the US, I'd go
>that route.
>
>I haven't called D-Link in years, but in the day, their tech support
>seemed to be domestic and competent.
>
>In my call to Linksys tech support, it was suggested to first try a
>different channel. I refused because that would mean setting up all my
>wifi clients again. No amount of insisting I didn't have a comm issue on
>the channel I picked would get me past step one on their script. I ran
>kismet and knew all the signal strength of my neighbors and the channels
>in use.
I don't see why changing channels on the router would mean squat to
the wireless clients. You don't get to specify the channel on the
client.
I decided to call the LinkSys support eventually when I have
patience to deal with them, but meanwhile I decided D-Link for
backup instead of Belkin based on the above feedback. Any
suggestions on D-Link router models based on what I intend to
do (explained in the posts above?)
> The claim was a GPL violation existed in the firmware. Well spend some
> freakin' money and get the rights to whatever was violated.
Ironically they couldn't buy the rights if they wanted to - all they need to
do is provide the source and the problem goes away.
> I hate Netgear. Their routers just out and out fizzle. D-Link seems to
> be OK for a company that really doesn't design anything. It's all ODM,
> just like Belkin, but they seem to have a decent ODM. [I'm only using
> D-Link switches, not a wifi router.]
Don't be in any doubt that Linksys is all about ODMing as well.
> It may be to get a decent router these days, you have to buy the Cisco
> branded gear. If the support on Cisco branded gear is in the US, I'd go
> that route.
Unfortunately Cisco have polluted their brand with their forays into the
lower end. Whereas before if someone bought a Cisco router or switch, they
could be sure they had something reasonably decent running IOS or CatOS;
nowadays you have to clarify with them, is it "Cisco Small Business",
"Linksys by Cisco", "Catalyst Express" or is it actually real Cisco kit?
When they bought Linksys, surely all they were getting was the name; they
already had the technical muscle, distribution, sales, marketing, etc. They
could have done the ODMs without buying Linksys, now they've got rid of the
brand too, what have they got left? I suppose this is partly what the recent
whining in the financial press over Cisco's management has been about.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
18:08:34 up 54 days, 22 min, 7 users, load average: 0.19, 0.19, 0.26
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King
If you get something that can run OpenWRT or DDWRT, then at least you've got
a way out if the original firmware is a bag of shite.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
18:35:41 up 54 days, 49 min, 7 users, load average: 0.09, 0.12, 0.14
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King
On 11/9/2011 12:48 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:35:05 -0800, miso<miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>
>> I noticed Fry's is now selling Cisco branded routers in addition to
>> Linksys. As you know, Linksys sucked in the pre-Cisco days. Lots of
>> complaints on the net. After being owned by Cisco for a while, Linksys
>> seemed to be OK. Now you show they are selling junk again.
>
> I guess everyone has their own perspective, just like everyone loves a
> certain brand of hard drive and considers all the rest junk. For me,
> Linksys (pre-Cisco) was the best of the lot at that time. Netgear was
> also fine, with D-Link solidly bringing up the rear. Other brands,
> notably Belkin, didn't even rate a mention, in my book. As for Linksys
> complaints on the net, I believe Linksys was by far the most popular
> so it stands to reason they would have the most complaints. I'm sure
> they also had the most satisfied users.
>
> It's important to note a few things, as well. Every brand has its
> stars and its clunkers, so it's not fair or correct to say a whole
> brand name is junk. I'm guilty of that, too. Secondly, it can also
> make a difference to separate the firmware from the hardware and
> evaluate each on its own. If you can run 3rd party firmware such as
> dd-wrt or Tomato or one of the other well-liked and well-known
> flavors, then it doesn't much matter how bad the original firmware is
> because you have an easy way to get around it.
>
>> I can verify Linksys customer support is crap. You get the call center
>> in India and the responses are totally scripted. They won't look into my
>> router going into an unresponsive state when it gets too much wifi data.
>> Further, not only is there no new firmware update, but tech support told
>> me they will only provide new firmware to add a feature. There are no
>> bug fixes. To add insult to injury, they actually pulled the firmware
>>from their website, so if for some reason I needed to flash the router,
>> I'm SOL. The claim was a GPL violation existed in the firmware. Well
>> spend some freakin' money and get the rights to whatever was violated.
>
> It's news to me that they no longer provide firmware on their website
> or that they don't provide bug fixes, so I checked a random model, the
> WRT54GL v1.1. While a quick glance didn't reveal multiple firmware
> versions, the latest version was there and its release notes had a
> fairly extensive list of bug fixes and nearly no new features. So much
> for what they told you.
> <http://homedownloads.cisco.com/downloads/WRT54GL_v4.30.15_FwReleaseNotes.txt>
>
>> I hate Netgear. Their routers just out and out fizzle. D-Link seems to
>> be OK for a company that really doesn't design anything. It's all ODM,
>> just like Belkin, but they seem to have a decent ODM. [I'm only using
>> D-Link switches, not a wifi router.] A lot of Belkin gear has lifetime
>> warranties, which I've managed to use thanks to their crappy Chinese
>> OEM. I will admit Belkin sends you new **** to replace the broken ****,
>> only after you send them the defective item.
>
> I have no experience with Belkin other than I've replaced a few dozen
> Belkin routers with Linksys models over the years. Usually it was
> because the Belkin had died, but more so lately it has been because
> the customer wanted to go wireless.
>
>> It may be to get a decent router these days, you have to buy the Cisco
>> branded gear. If the support on Cisco branded gear is in the US, I'd go
>> that route.
>>
>> I haven't called D-Link in years, but in the day, their tech support
>> seemed to be domestic and competent.
>>
>> In my call to Linksys tech support, it was suggested to first try a
>> different channel. I refused because that would mean setting up all my
>> wifi clients again. No amount of insisting I didn't have a comm issue on
>> the channel I picked would get me past step one on their script. I ran
>> kismet and knew all the signal strength of my neighbors and the channels
>> in use.
>
> I don't see why changing channels on the router would mean squat to
> the wireless clients. You don't get to specify the channel on the
> client.
>
Some of my gear will not connect if the channel is changed. It might be
security in the client. My Logitech squeezeboxes for instance. It sees
something has changed, and figures you want to start from scratch.
Linksys pre-Cisco was dissed quite a bit on the net. Also not every
Linksys can use 3rd party firmware. I have a WRT330N. Per the Cisco
website:
> (The firmware/driver for this product is no longer available for download. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you.)
Hey at least they are sorry. ;-) Like I said, there is a GPL violation
in the firmware, and the company is to f-ing cheap to pay off whomever
needs to be paid off. I weaseled that out of tech support, though with
more polite terminology.
On 11/9/2011 10:30 AM, alexd wrote:
> miso (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> The claim was a GPL violation existed in the firmware. Well spend some
>> freakin' money and get the rights to whatever was violated.
>
> Ironically they couldn't buy the rights if they wanted to - all they need to
> do is provide the source and the problem goes away.
>
>> I hate Netgear. Their routers just out and out fizzle. D-Link seems to
>> be OK for a company that really doesn't design anything. It's all ODM,
>> just like Belkin, but they seem to have a decent ODM. [I'm only using
>> D-Link switches, not a wifi router.]
>
> Don't be in any doubt that Linksys is all about ODMing as well.
>
>> It may be to get a decent router these days, you have to buy the Cisco
>> branded gear. If the support on Cisco branded gear is in the US, I'd go
>> that route.
>
> Unfortunately Cisco have polluted their brand with their forays into the
> lower end. Whereas before if someone bought a Cisco router or switch, they
> could be sure they had something reasonably decent running IOS or CatOS;
> nowadays you have to clarify with them, is it "Cisco Small Business",
> "Linksys by Cisco", "Catalyst Express" or is it actually real Cisco kit?
> When they bought Linksys, surely all they were getting was the name; they
> already had the technical muscle, distribution, sales, marketing, etc. They
> could have done the ODMs without buying Linksys, now they've got rid of the
> brand too, what have they got left? I suppose this is partly what the recent
> whining in the financial press over Cisco's management has been about.
>
I will admit I don't understand the GPL issue. I provided the lame ***
message on the Cisco website in my other post, but here it is again:
> http://homesupport.cisco.com/en-us/wireless/lbc/WRT330N
> (The firmware/driver for this product is no longer available for download. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you.)
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:58:17 -0800, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>On 11/9/2011 12:48 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> I don't see why changing channels on the router would mean squat to
>> the wireless clients. You don't get to specify the channel on the
>> client.
>
>Some of my gear will not connect if the channel is changed. It might be
>security in the client. My Logitech squeezeboxes for instance. It sees
>something has changed, and figures you want to start from scratch.
I don't know what "start from scratch" means, or what it entails with
regard to a Squeezebox, but it doesn't surprise me that changing the
channel on the router causes the clients to drop. That sounds
completely normal. When you re-establish the wireless connection the
clients will (automatically) use the new channel. When tech support
suggested you try another channel, that sounds like excellent advice
to me. Not all forms of interference on the WiFi spectrum comes from
other WiFi devices so it won't necessarily show up with WiFi
monitoring tools. Lacking proper tools, trial and error is probably
your best bet.
>Linksys pre-Cisco was dissed quite a bit on the net.
Yes, of course. They were, by far, the most popular brand out there
for quite a number of years and probably still are, so it stands to
reason that they would have the largest number of complaints. When
more people use something, that thing will generate a higher number of
complaints, but the picture changes dramatically when you consider the
number of complaints as a percentage of total number of customers. I
think that's the point you're missing.
>Also not every Linksys can use 3rd party firmware.
Of course. IMHO, it's a good idea, prior to making a purchase
decision, to determine whether that piece of hardware is supported by
3rd party firmware, but I understand that most people don't consider
that to be important or simply don't think that far ahead. Some of
them come to regret it later.
> I have a WRT330N. Per the Cisco website:
>> (The firmware/driver for this product is no longer available for download. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you.)
>
>Hey at least they are sorry. ;-) Like I said, there is a GPL violation
>in the firmware, and the company is to f-ing cheap to pay off whomever
>needs to be paid off. I weaseled that out of tech support, though with
>more polite terminology.
Who do you think they should pay? Why do you think this is a case of
not wanting to pay someone?
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:13:18 -0800 (PST), "R I G Consulting, Inc."
<rig_poster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It appears, OpenWRT has the latest at 802.11b for both LinkSys and D-
>Link?
>So I may have settle with 802.11b?
No. All the devices in the supported shopping list support 802.11g.
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported_Devices>
<http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start>
<http://www.polarcloud.com/tomato>
I prefer DD-WRT.
Note that not every WRT54G hardware mutation is suitable. V1.1 thru
V4 are fine, V5 and V6 are junk, and V5 thu V8 only have enough RAM to
load the "micro" version, which is lacking in many features.
Note that Netgear also has their own open source support forum:
<http://www.myopenrouter.com>
Plenty to choose from. However, are you sure you're ready for a
learning curve? Alternative firmware is NOT a plug-n-play exercise.
> Plenty to choose from. However, are you sure you're ready for a
> learning curve? Alternative firmware is NOT a plug-n-play exercise.
I beg to differ - DD-WRT has looked the same to me on every router I've ever
put it on, which eases the learning curve as you're not having to figure out
another manufacturer's UI. The defaults are sensible [apart from the
insecure wifi] so it should be easy enough to get going. If you're not up to
installing it on your router, a quick Google product search will turn up
routers pre-loaded with DD-WRT.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
19:32:31 up 55 days, 1:46, 7 users, load average: 0.07, 0.26, 0.35
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King
>
> Who do you think they should pay? Why do you think this is a case of
> not wanting to pay someone?
>
There is a GPL violation. Whatever it takes to undo that violation is
what Cisco needs to do. I assume that means a royalty, but I'm not a lawyer.
Changing channels was a moronic suggestion. I had no comm problem. As it
turns out, the problem was with the ISP.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:59:26 -0800, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Who do you think they should pay? Why do you think this is a case of
>> not wanting to pay someone?
>>
>There is a GPL violation. Whatever it takes to undo that violation is
>what Cisco needs to do. I assume that means a royalty, but I'm not a lawyer.
>
>Changing channels was a moronic suggestion. I had no comm problem. As it
>turns out, the problem was with the ISP.
On 11/10/2011 9:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:59:26 -0800, miso<miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Who do you think they should pay? Why do you think this is a case of
>>> not wanting to pay someone?
>>>
>> There is a GPL violation. Whatever it takes to undo that violation is
>> what Cisco needs to do. I assume that means a royalty, but I'm not a lawyer.
>>
>> Changing channels was a moronic suggestion. I had no comm problem. As it
>> turns out, the problem was with the ISP.
>
> Hopeless.
>
Whatever. I guess this is all beyond your comprehension.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:39:10 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> Plenty to choose from. However, are you sure you're ready for a
>> learning curve? Alternative firmware is NOT a plug-n-play exercise.
>
>I beg to differ - DD-WRT has looked the same to me on every router I've ever
>put it on, which eases the learning curve as you're not having to figure out
>another manufacturer's UI. The defaults are sensible [apart from the
>insecure wifi] so it should be easy enough to get going. If you're not up to
>installing it on your router, a quick Google product search will turn up
>routers pre-loaded with DD-WRT.
A common user interface is great once you've learned it. The problem
is the initial learning curve. My guess(tm) is that there are perhaps
10 times as many options, checkboxes, and obscure features scattered
among the various DD-WRT management pages. For some models, loading
the firmware is an ordeal process, where a comatose router is the
reward for failing to follow the instructions exactly.
Many useful features (such as being able to directly configure an
attached cable or DSL modem), require command line incantations to
configure. Another example is guest access on a separate subnet.
That's a standard feature on most commodity routers made in the last 2
years. For dd-wrt, here's the procedure:
<http://forums.buffalotech.com/t5/Wireless/FAQ-5-of-5-Wireless-Guest-Network-on-Buffalo-DD-WRT/td-p/65372>
As for the defaults being sensible, there are a few that I would
change. Saving the DHCP status (MAC address table), between reboots
is useful, until you try it at a coffee shop which could easily see
thousands of MAC addresses. Probably a few more I could complain
about, but I don't want to look right now.
As for routers pre-loaded with DD-WRT, to the best of my knowledge,
only Buffalo offers retail "powered by dd-wrt" products.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote in part:
> There is a GPL violation. Whatever it takes to undo that violation is what
> Cisco needs to do. I assume that means a royalty, but I'm not a lawyer.
GPL violations are usually failure to publish source. Easy to
cure, just give the source to anyone who legitimately has the
device/binary and requests it. Not at all easy to figure out to
whom you might pay a royalty. The Linux kernel has hundreds if not
thousands of authors, all of whom would have to give you a separate
licence. Virtually impossible, so delivering source is easier.
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:28:31 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>A common user interface is great once you've learned it. The problem
>is the initial learning curve. My guess(tm) is that there are perhaps
>10 times as many options, checkboxes, and obscure features scattered
>among the various DD-WRT management pages. For some models, loading
>the firmware is an ordeal process, where a comatose router is the
>reward for failing to follow the instructions exactly.
>
>Many useful features (such as being able to directly configure an
>attached cable or DSL modem), require command line incantations to
>configure.
Just curious, can you give an example of a cable modem that can be
configured by the user (versus the cable company)? I can't think of
any modems, or modem features, that allow that.*
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:18:29 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:
>Just curious, can you give an example of a cable modem that can be
>configured by the user (versus the cable company)? I can't think of
>any modems, or modem features, that allow that.*
>
>*Not without flashing the firmware, I mean.
Ok, I won't mention the cable modem hacking guide.
I shouldn't have used "configure" and cable modem in the same
sentence. There's nothing that can be changed by the user as
literally all the parameters and settings are performed via DHCP
extensions from the CMTS. However, on Comcast, the user can connect
to 192.168.100.254 and obtain connection status, signal levels, and
other interesting info.
It's more useful with a DSL modem, where users actually have access to
settings that they can change and screw up. Here's the setup for
DD-WRT to create what I think is a static route to the WAN side of the
router so that LAN users can talk to the modem.
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Access_To_Modem_Configuration>
It took me about an hour to decode the instructions, fix my errors,
and make it work. It's now in all my DD-WRT installations.
On 11/11/2011 2:32 PM, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet miso<miso@sushi.com> wrote in part:
>> There is a GPL violation. Whatever it takes to undo that violation is what
>> Cisco needs to do. I assume that means a royalty, but I'm not a lawyer.
>
> GPL violations are usually failure to publish source. Easy to
> cure, just give the source to anyone who legitimately has the
> device/binary and requests it. Not at all easy to figure out to
> whom you might pay a royalty. The Linux kernel has hundreds if not
> thousands of authors, all of whom would have to give you a separate
> licence. Virtually impossible, so delivering source is easier.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
So you think Cisco has some call it "sexy code" that they don't want to
publish so they just completely pulled the firmware? But the firmware is
out there, so wouldn't that mean the products in the field violate the GPL?
It would be interesting to go through the support website and see how
many routers for which they won't supply the firmware. Obviously a
tedious task.
>> GPL violations are usually failure to publish source. Easy to
>> cure, just give the source to anyone who legitimately has the
>> device/binary and requests it. Not at all easy to figure out to
>> whom you might pay a royalty. The Linux kernel has hundreds if not
>> thousands of authors, all of whom would have to give you a separate
>> licence. Virtually impossible, so delivering source is easier.
I suspect the vast majority of contributors wouldn't want one's money anyway
- after all there's a reason they made their contributions under the GPL in
the first place.
> So you think Cisco has some call it "sexy code" that they don't want to
> publish so they just completely pulled the firmware?
My guess it was written by an ODM and they don't have the source in the
first place. Perhaps they've had to do some arm-twisting to get it
subsequently.
> But the firmware is out there, so wouldn't that mean the products in the
> field violate the GPL?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
10:17:07 up 49 min, 5 users, load average: 0.19, 0.25, 0.34
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:26:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:18:29 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Just curious, can you give an example of a cable modem that can be
>>configured by the user (versus the cable company)? I can't think of
>>any modems, or modem features, that allow that.*
>>
>>*Not without flashing the firmware, I mean.
>
>Ok, I won't mention the cable modem hacking guide.
No need, I'm quite familiar with that aspect.
>I shouldn't have used "configure" and cable modem in the same
>sentence. There's nothing that can be changed by the user as
>literally all the parameters and settings are performed via DHCP
>extensions from the CMTS. However, on Comcast, the user can connect
>to 192.168.100.254 and obtain connection status, signal levels, and
>other interesting info.
IME, most cable modems seem to have followed the Motorola example and
put their web server at 192.168.100.1. I've only seen the .254 address
on some 2Wire DSL modems. No NAT router configuration is required to
reach the 192.168.100.x subnet because it's outside of the LAN in
every case I've stumbled across, although now that I've said that I
suppose I'll encounter someone who has configured their LAN to be on
the 192.168.100.x subnet and can't figure out why they can't see past
their router to view their cable modem status.
>It's more useful with a DSL modem, where users actually have access to
>settings that they can change and screw up. Here's the setup for
>DD-WRT to create what I think is a static route to the WAN side of the
>router so that LAN users can talk to the modem.
><http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Access_To_Modem_Configuration>
>It took me about an hour to decode the instructions, fix my errors,
>and make it work. It's now in all my DD-WRT installations.
Yuck. Happily, I've never run into that. Good to know there's a
solution, just in case.
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:03:39 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:
>IME, most cable modems seem to have followed the Motorola example and
>put their web server at 192.168.100.1. I've only seen the .254 address
>on some 2Wire DSL modems.
So much for my photographic memory.
>No NAT router configuration is required to
>reach the 192.168.100.x subnet because it's outside of the LAN in
>every case I've stumbled across, although now that I've said that I
>suppose I'll encounter someone who has configured their LAN to be on
>the 192.168.100.x subnet and can't figure out why they can't see past
>their router to view their cable modem status.
Try it. I think you'll be surprised. What the router will do is
assume that access to every IP address outside of the NAT address
space is reached through the default gateway address. For example, if
the NAT LAN side is at 192.168.1.xxx, and you try to view
192.168.100.1 with your web browser, the router will dutifully send
the request to the ISP's default gateway. Note that this is the ISP's
default gateway, not the router IP.
In order to avoid having everything outside of the NAT address block
go out via the ISP default gateway, you need to setup a static route
on the WAN side of the router. The ugly mess below is how DD-WRT does
it.
Even if the user mis-configures their router to use 192.168.100.xxx as
their NAT address space, it still won't work. The router has to
decide which side of the router the 192.168.100.1 address is located.
The assumption is that since it's in the NAT address space, it must be
on the LAN side. It won't look on the WAN side. This is a problem
with older DSL modems, that default to 192.168.0.1. This also
explains why many newer routers now default to 192.168.2.xxx.
I've found very few consumer level routers that can successfully
configure the modem through the router. The conglomerated devices,
that have the modem and router in the same package, such as the 2wire
2700HG-B DSL modem/router, will do it. Since it's all in one box, a
single management IP address is used to configure both the modem and
the router, thus eliminating the need for elaborate routing.
>>It's more useful with a DSL modem, where users actually have access to
>>settings that they can change and screw up. Here's the setup for
>>DD-WRT to create what I think is a static route to the WAN side of the
>>router so that LAN users can talk to the modem.
>><http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Access_To_Modem_Configuration>
>>It took me about an hour to decode the instructions, fix my errors,
>>and make it work. It's now in all my DD-WRT installations.
>
>Yuck. Happily, I've never run into that. Good to know there's a
>solution, just in case.
You will run into it with most consumer router installation. One
reason I use DD-WRT is that I can do such tricks. It's not often that
I have to look at the modem config, but they do exist. For example, I
have a situation where the DSL signal levels and SNR seem to be
varying. I login remotely (using TeamViewer) to the customers PC,
connect to the DSL modem at 192.168.0.1, and look at the numbers.
On 11/12/2011 2:24 AM, alexd wrote:
> miso (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2011 2:32 PM, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
>>> GPL violations are usually failure to publish source. Easy to
>>> cure, just give the source to anyone who legitimately has the
>>> device/binary and requests it. Not at all easy to figure out to
>>> whom you might pay a royalty. The Linux kernel has hundreds if not
>>> thousands of authors, all of whom would have to give you a separate
>>> licence. Virtually impossible, so delivering source is easier.
>
> I suspect the vast majority of contributors wouldn't want one's money anyway
> - after all there's a reason they made their contributions under the GPL in
> the first place.
>
>> So you think Cisco has some call it "sexy code" that they don't want to
>> publish so they just completely pulled the firmware?
>
> My guess it was written by an ODM and they don't have the source in the
> first place. Perhaps they've had to do some arm-twisting to get it
> subsequently.
>
>> But the firmware is out there, so wouldn't that mean the products in the
>> field violate the GPL?
>
> <http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...th-FSF-on-GPL-
> violations/>
>
Well that is about 90% of the story I was looking for. Thanks. However,
If Cisco published the source per the lawsuit, then why is the firmware
off their website?
This router came out long after the Linksys buyout. It could have
remnants of the old code, but you would think Cisco would have cleaned
things up by then. The buyout was in 2003. The WRT330N came out around
2007 based on reviews.
I wonder if Cisco just paid enough to cover the FSF legal costs, or
really made a significant contribution to the cause.
Cisco Wireless -N Home Router WRT120N 
Linear Mode
