>I have a new Toshiba L35-S2171 laptop running XP Home. The built-in
>wireless shows up in Device Manager as an Atheros AR5005G. the
>driver version is 4.1.2.146. The router is a new Buffalo
>WHR-HP-G54, with firmware 1.40, using WPA TKIP encryption. The
>desktop is wired to the router, and that seems to work fine.
Good set of hardware. Thanks for the exact description. I'm not sure
if the Atheros driver is the latest but it's worth checking the
Toshiblah web pile to be sure.
>The problem I have is with the laptop. I may be following a chat
>room with no problem, but when I go to open a new instance of IE and
>go to, say, Google, or Yahoo, I get no repsonse. No response even
>to a ping. Meanwhile, the chat room traffic continues to come in
>normally. Then, I may try Google again a few minutes later, and it
>works. But then after a while it becomes non-responsive again.
>Meanwhile, chat back and forth continues normally.
Is it just Google or does it go flaky with other web sites?
If just Google, is it just the home page (no advertising), or is it
the search results page (with advertising)? Sometimes the advertising
server gets slow, causing the page to paint slowly.
Chat rooms use very little bandwidth, while web pages with graphics
tend to be large. However, the Google home and search pages are
fairly small.
>Of course this may even be a modem or Cox problem, but since I'm new
>to wireless and routers and laptops, and since I've never seen this
>behavior before, I would like to try to rule out some things if I
>can.
Try it with a non-wireless, CAT5 ethernet connection to the laptop.
Make sure the wireless is disabled or turned off. If that works, it's
*NOT* the modem or router section.
>Channel select - Auto (maybe change to 11 fixed - nobody else using)
I've had no luck with auto. I suggest picking a clear channel (1, 6,
and 11) and not using auto.
>Multicast rate - Auto (maybe change to 54)
Leave at auto. That's for the multimedia wireless stuff, which you
generally want to go as fast as possible.
>Frame bursting - 125 (125 not supported on client - maybe change to
>normal or off)
Change to OFF if you're not using it at the client. It will "poll"
for the 125Mbit/sec modulation and slow down thruput. Also, if you
don't have any 802.11b clients that need to connect, you might try
turning off "802.11b compatibility mode". However, these will not
cause flaky performance, just a slow down, so I don't think this is
the problem.
>802.11g Protection - On (Off?)
I have no idea what this actually does. Toss a coin.
>Output power - 100% (25, 50, 75)
100% can't hurt.
>Anything else?
Yep. Turn off "intrusion detection" in the firewall for now. I'm
suspicious of this feature (but currently have no proof).
>Power saver mode - On (Off? - what does this do?)
Off. It shuts down the wireless client when the client is NOT
expected to receive data. The DTIM interval in the access point
determines when it should wake up. If the driver is screwy on the
client, it may not wake up and you end up losing packets. It also
turns off the wireless card if the laptop goes idle. Turn it off.
>From what I can see, the signal strength is quite strong when these
>problems come up. It's the HP router, and I'm just in the next
>room, so I don't think that's the problem. Also, there's only one
>other wireless detected, and it's low signal, and using channel 6.
>I'm the only one on channel 11.
You won't see access points that are intentionally set to not
broadcast their SSID. In order to detect these, you'll need a Linux
based (Kismet) passive sniffer. It might be a good idea to try one to
insure that you have an empty channel. However, the easiest way is to
just try 1, 6, and 11 in succession and see if any one channel works
better than the others.
>Could this be some strange NAT problem, where the routing table gets
>filled up and the router won't let the repsonse back in?
No. Let's not get into probable causes at this point.
>Would a
>router power-cycle fix that?
You should be power cycling the router during tests anyway to clear
out any junk or accidental setting changes.
So much for guesswork. On to getting some numbers and doing some
testing.
1. Ping the router via wireless.
Start -> run -> cmd <enter>
ping -t 192.168.11.1 (IP address of the router).
It should be almost the same value for each line with no timeout
errors and no erratic latency changes. If you see those, it means
packet loss caused by interference, flaky hardware, or propagation
issues (unlikely).
2. Do you have a 2nd wired computer handy? If so, it's time to try
IPerf:
<http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/>
Grab the DOS version and copy IPerf to both machines. The one
connected via wired CAT5 will be the "server". Run:
iperf -s
on the server. The Toshiba laptop will play client. First, connect
via a CAT5 cable to the WHR-HP-G54 and run:
iperf -c 192.168.11.xxx (IP address of server)
You should get about 80-90Mbits/sec with a wired connection.
Now, unplug the CAT5 from the laptop and try it via wireless. With a
54Mbit/sec connection, you should get between 22 and 25Mbits/sec. If
it's much lower, then there's some packet loss happening and we need
to isolate it.
That's enough testing for now. There's plenty more options to IPerf
available (read the docs) and more testing to isolate the cause
depending on the results you get.
>It goes flaky on everything, including the Google home page.
>After a while I get the IE error "Unable to locate server or
>DNS error" and as I said, I can't even ping Google. Well,
>it did do the Google DNS lookup on the ping, but gave me
>three no-responses in a row. Same on Yahoo.com. You know,
>that seems awfully strange - that the DNS works, but not
>the subsequent ping.
Ok, you've got LOTS of packet loss. Ping should show the problem.
Fire up the wireless connection and run:
start -> run -> cmd <enter>
ping -t 192.168.11.1 (ip address of router)
You should get consistant and stable numbers for latency with no
packet loss or huge variations in delays.
>Does the Buffalo maintain its own DNS
>table?
Yes.
>Well, I changed the router from Auto channel select to
>channel 11, and changed the frame bursting setting to "frame
>bursting", which is different from the default 125.
Turn OFF both 125, frame burst, and any other speed enhance acronyms.
>There's
>no setting re frame bursting in the client, but I guess
>there is some kind of standard frame bursting that's part of
>G but not as fast as 125.
No. Frame burst is the one that gets the speed up to 108Mbits/sec and
the other stuff squeaks it up to 125Mbits/sec. Neigher is very useful
except with compatible client hardware and at very short ranges.
>And I turned off power saving
>mode in the client. Everything else was already as you
>suggested. And, I power-cycled the router.
Ummmm.... What were you expecting here? That the router runs at 100%
efficiency and reliability forever? You're not going to get that with
a cheapo product. Plan on doing a reboot when things screw up.
>Well, I don't know. When these problems occurred, if was
>after I had done a good bit of uTorrent stuff on the desktop
>computer earlier in the day, but had not power-cycled the
>router.
File sharing peer to peer programs are a problem for most cheap
routers. They cannot handle the large number of open sockets and
buffers that the program tries to open. Usually it's the ARP cache
that overflows first, although other buffers will overflow even if the
ARP cache survives. The required RAM in the router simply is not
there. The best solution is to configure your file sharing program to
NOT open so many simultaneous ports and sessions. I'll leave it to
you to read the P2P program docs and make the appropriate adjustments.
>This time I did power cycle. Well, I'll have to
>watch for that. If it goes flaky again, I think the first
>thing is to reboot everything and see what that does.
That usually works for perhaps an hour. Limiting the number of
simultaneous P2P sessions will help even more.
>There's something in the uTorrent FAQ about a table-filling
>problem with Linksys routers, which keep the entries for
>five days. I just hadn't seen anything like that concerning
>Buffalo.
Linksys WRT54G and Buffalo use the same Broadcom chipset and probably
have quite a bit in common. I suggest you consider alternative
firmware such as DD-WRT which handles P2P programs somewhat more
gracefully.
>I don't have a Linux machine.
You don't need a Linux machine. What you need is a Linux LiveCD or
bootable CDROM that runs Linux and Kismet without affecting your
Windoze hard disk. See:
<http://www.remote-exploit.org/backtrack.html>
>You're saying that Windows
>sniffers don't see non-broadcast APs?
In general, they do not. Active probes such as Netstumbler and the
typical wireless client software will not show a hidden or blank SSID.
Well, the Netgear client that came with my WG511 will show a blank
SSID indicating that something is there, but not identify it. In
order to do a passive sniff that shows everything, the Windoze driver
will need to support the promiscuous or monitor modes. The stock
NDIS5.1 drivers do not do this. There are 3rd party drivers that do
allow promiscous mode. You should have minimal difficulties finding
them with Google. Have your credit card ready. Meanwhile, all Linux
wireless drivers do support the promiscuous mode, which is why I
suggest using Linux for sniffing.
>There must be some
>way to see them in Windows.
There's always a way.
>Otherwise, how would a client
>find its own router if not broadcasting?
If the AP is not broadcasting the SSID or responding to probe
requests, then all the user has to do is create a profile for the
connection, inscribe the proper SSID, and the connection will proceed
normally.
>Won't Netstumbler discover these APs?
No.
>Thanks very much for your help on this. I will do the iperf
>tests and let you know what they say, but I'm hoping the
>changes made have fixed it.
I don't think that IPerf will show much. My guess(tm) is that your
P2P habit has hosed the router and that a simple reboot will inspire a
miraculous recovery. What had me confused is that you stated that it
worked with a wired connection. Try the test anyway as you can tell
how well your wireless is working from the results.
>Now it works fine. I have a list of things to try next time
>this happens, if it ever does. I think a little more
>inciteful troubleshooting will narrow it down.
Good. I just sorta assume that people do a power cycle (reboot) when
something goes insane. It seems obvious but I just noticed that its
not in any of the official knowledgebase troubleshooting procedures.
Assumption, the mother of all screwups.
> >> Does the Buffalo maintain its own DNS table?
> > Yes.
>I just wish it wouldn't do that. I have that turned off in
>XP because I have a large Hosts file. Oh well.
Not a problem.
1. If you have a hosts file, your DNS resolver looks *FIRST* in the
hosts file for the IP address. If finds a match, it doesn't look any
furthur.
2. If you want to bypass the routers DNS buffer, just setup Windoze
TCP/IP properties to have the DNS servers point to the actual ISP's
DNS servers instead of the router.
> > Ummmm.... What were you expecting here? That the router
> > runs at 100% efficiency and reliability forever? You're
> > not going to get that with a cheapo product. Plan on
> > doing a reboot when things screw up.
>
>Hey, this is a *genuine* $45 Buffalo router, not some cheap
>imitation.
If you install DD-WRT, you have have it reboot ocassionally to
unscramble the buffers.
<http://www.informatione.gmxhome.de/DDWRT/Standard/V23final/Alive.html>
Another way, that I had to use on my former BEFW11S4v4, was to cycle
the AC power using an AC lamp timer. Crude, but effective.
>I've thought about that a lot, but I see people in the
>DD-WRT forum having LOTS of problems flashing, as well as
>disagreement on which versions actually work on the HP. So
>I'm gonna hold off on that for a while.
Flashing is not much of a problem if you follow instructions exactly.
See:
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Installation#Buffalo_WHR-G54S.2C_WHR-HP-G54.2C_WZR-HP-G54.2C_and_WZR-RS-G54>
>Ok, but do I also need a Linux driver for my specific
>Atheros client? That might be difficult to find.
Yes, but since this particular LiveCD was made for wireless hacking,
it should contain most of the current drivers. As I recall, you have
a card with an Atheros AR5005G chipset. Atheros is usually very well
supported, but I have no easy way to check at this time. In general,
if it's supported by Knoppix and MadWiFi, it will work.
<http://madwifi.org/wiki/MadWifi>
<http://madwifi.org/wiki/Compatibility>
Looks like it's supported, but no guarantees (from me).
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:17:25 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<7rres2l76vfpufmo8o0q00vmbkvubjutcn@4ax.com>:
>1. If you have a hosts file, your DNS resolver looks *FIRST* in the
>hosts file for the IP address. If finds a match, it doesn't look any
>furthur.
By default, but that priority order can be changed. I find that useful
because it allows me to use HOSTS as a fallback for critical DNS names
when DNS lookup fails.
>If you install DD-WRT, you have have it reboot ocassionally to
>unscramble the buffers.
Yikes! I consider that a near-fatal flaw.
Unfortunately, I've now seen that in stock Buffalo firmware, where DHCP
can get screwed up enough not to hand out an address unless the hardware
is rebooted. [sigh]
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:12:27 -0600, Peabody
<waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in
<fuRxh.170482$jb3.138889@newsfe18.lga>:
>Jeff Liebermann says...
>
> > 1. If you have a hosts file, your DNS resolver looks
> > *FIRST* in the hosts file for the IP address. If finds
> > a match, it doesn't look any furthur.
>
>Yes, but my experience with 98SE was that leaving DNS
>running in the computer, alongside the huge hosts file,
>slowed everything down quite a bit, particularly on the
>first run of IE after boot. It appeared Windows was trying
>to set up each hosts entry in the local DNS table. Indeed,
>after just disabling the DNS service, everything speeded up
>again. I just haven't ever bothered to test this in XP.
It's not that, but it does parse the HOSTS file each time it's accessed,
which is a relatively slow process. Best not to have a large HOSTS
file.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
>Yes, but my experience with 98SE was that leaving DNS
>running in the computer, alongside the huge hosts file,
>slowed everything down quite a bit, particularly on the
>first run of IE after boot. It appeared Windows was trying
>to set up each hosts entry in the local DNS table. Indeed,
>after just disabling the DNS service, everything speeded up
>again. I just haven't ever bothered to test this in XP.
Testing is easy. Just run:
ipconfig /displaydns
and see if any of the entries from the hosts file appear in the
Windoze DNS cache. You can make it easier to read by first running:
ipconfig /flushdns
Oh, lets see what happens. I added the line:
111.111.111.111 junk
to my w2k \winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file.
C:\>ipconfig /flushdns
Windows 2000 IP Configuration
Successfully flushed the DNS Resolver Cache.
C:\>ping junk
Pinging junk [111.111.111.111] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
blah....
c:\>ipconfig /displaydns
(bunch of assorted localhost lookups...)
junk.
------------------------------------
Record Name . . . . . : junk
Record Type . . . . . : 1
Time To Live . . . . : 31534209
Data Length . . . . . : 4
Section . . . . . . . : Answer
A (Host) Record . . . :
111.111.111.111
111.111.111.111.in-addr.arpa.
------------------------------------------------------
Record Name . . . . . : 111.111.111.111.in-addr.arpa
Record Type . . . . . : 12
Time To Live . . . . : 31534209
Data Length . . . . . : 4
Section . . . . . . . : Answer
PTR Record . . . . . :
junk
Well, you're right. The resolver does try to populate the DNS cache
with both the forward and reverse DNS entries from the hosts file. I'm
too lazy to find out if it populates the entire list, or just the
current lookup. I'll leave that to someone else to test. However, it
does suggest that a huge hosts file will create a rather bloated
resolver cache.
>Yes, but those addresses change from time to time. I would
>need a way to get those addresses from the router.
If they change, they shouldn't be in the hosts file. Hosts is
strictly for static IP's. If they change, you need a DNS lookup to
get the right IP address. Kinda sounds like some type of scheme to
speed up DNS lookups. That's fine but there's a point where the size
of the hosts file makes this exercise counter productive.
>Well, I've been following the DD-WRT forum for some time
>now, and it's just not clear that that's the case.
The only people complaining about flashing problems in the forums are
those that are having problems. There are plenty of users that have
had no problems and don't need to post complaints in the forums.
>Moreover, re-flashing the original firmware is also
>problematical, from what I read.
Not really. I've only done it once and had no problems. I used the
TFTP server method, not the menu driven firmware upgrade, which does
tend to be a problem. TFTP always works.
>I'm just not comfortable
>trying it yet, and frankly, would rather avoid it if I can
>get by on the stock firmware.
>
> Well, I've been following the DD-WRT forum for some time
> now, and it's just not clear that that's the case.
> Moreover, re-flashing the original firmware is also
> problematical, from what I read. I'm just not comfortable
> trying it yet, and frankly, would rather avoid it if I can
> get by on the stock firmware.
>
>
I have the Buffalo Router and it is Flashed with DD-WRT. I had no
problems what-so-ever flashing it or after flashing it. I will not buy
another low end router that DD-WRT does not support.
Ok, so you're using the hosts file to block sites you do *NOT* want to
view. That can also be done in W2K and XP using the security settings
or Zonemaps.
Control Panel -> Internet Options -> Security ->
Restricted Sites -> Sites
Just populate the list with sites you do NOT want to see. That's the
way most anti-spyware and anti-phishing protection software works.
The same site offers instructions:
<http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/restricted.htm>
I have no idea which of these two methods is the more efficient for
large block lists.
Also, if you have a large number of machines to deal with and keep the
block lists updated, you might find it expedient to setup a proxy
server with a single large block list. There are also online web
proxy services (i.e. safe surfing services) that will do it for you,
but I don't think that's what you want or need.
Incidentally, I will confess to have had problems flashing DD-WRT and
OpenWRT on various devices when I was getting started. I also managed
to "brick" a few routers in the process. The first time I did the
recovery exercise, using TFTP, I also had problems. Eventually, I
read the instructions carefully and recovered. The only catch I've
found with the TFTP method is that the instructions say to
"immediately" start the TFTP client upload after powering up the
router. This is incorrect. You have to wait about 3 seconds for the
router to start its initial boot, or it will fail.
>>The router is a new Buffalo
> >WHR-HP-G54, with firmware 1.40, using WPA TKIP encryption.
I've got the same HP router, but running DD-WRT v24sp2 VOIP
> >The problem I have is with the laptop. I may be following a chat
> >room with no problem, but when I go to open a new instance of IE and
> >go to, say, Google, or Yahoo, I get no repsonse. No response even
> >to a ping. Meanwhile, the chat room traffic continues to come in
> >normally. Then, I may try Google again a few minutes later, and it
> >works. But then after a while it becomes non-responsive again.
> >Meanwhile, chat back and forth continues normally.
>
I've been seeing something similar occasionally over the last couple
of days. Sometimes, while doing email in one IE6 window, I cannot get
the other window to go to a page, not even google, even though I'm
"connected" and can get thru the router to the modem fine. If I
repeatedly try to go to the page, it WILL go through. At that point,
I forget about the problem and move on. But you reminded me.
In my case I recently enabled QOS and we have up to 8 users (four
wireless) and up to two running Skype at times. I figured it was
that. Maybe it is, or maybe the mem is maxed. Maybe it's all one. I
see that it has little memory to spare now.
> >From what I can see, the signal strength is quite strong when these
> >problems come up.
Same here. Not about sigal strength.
> >Would a
> >router power-cycle fix that?
I think that this will do it for me, but I have not tried yet, new
behavior, only a few instances so far. Not a serious problem yet.
Jeff says:
"File sharing peer to peer programs are a problem for most cheap
routers. They cannot handle the large number of open sockets and
buffers that the program tries to open. Usually it's the ARP cache
that overflows first, although other buffers will overflow even if
the
ARP cache survives. The required RAM in the router simply is not
there. The best solution is to configure your file sharing program
to
NOT open so many simultaneous ports and sessions. I'll leave it to
you to read the P2P program docs and make the appropriate adjustments.
"
Somehow, without understanding, I wonder if this is similar to what
is happening to us.
This link shows reboot "off". But that's just to show us where the
control is right? You are suggesting that we want to turn reboot
"On" and set an interval or time, right?
If this is about RAM or ARP caches, buffers, then, again, without
understanding, might turning QOS back off help?
Also, perhaps for no good reason, I have the "VOIP" version
installed. Probably going to standard or mini would free up RAM?
I know, I should be on the DD-WRT forum with many of these
questions....just say so....
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Ok, so you're using the hosts file to block sites you do *NOT* want to
> view. That can also be done in W2K and XP using the security settings
> or Zonemaps.
Redirecting these site names to 127.0.0.1 is inefficient, because every
lookup results in an http timeout as it tries to contact the http server o
your local machine.
It's better to redirect it to some fast http server where, presumably, the
page won't be found. My favorite example used to be nytimes.com which was
full of atdmt.com and double-click references that I found by watching the
status bar, or I could check my router logs.
I would get little portions of the "sorry, page not found" page where
various advertising icons should appear. If I changed my redirect to
127.0.0.1, the page took noticeably longer to come up, with stock 404 pages
painted in the little advertising spots.
But NYTimes is too clever for that now. They have the servers redirected
internally, so they can't be filtered so easily.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Peabody wrote:
> Danny Kile says...
>
> > I have the Buffalo Router and it is Flashed with DD-WRT.
> > I had no problems what-so-ever flashing it or after
> > flashing it. I will not buy another low end router that
> > DD-WRT does not support.
>
> > My two cents worth,
>
> Thanks for the info. Is your router the WHR-HP-G54? Which
> version of DD-WRT did you flash it with?
>
My router is the Buffalo WHR-G54S which uses the same software as your
WHR-HP-G54, which can be found at this location.
and then go into the Standard Folder and then download the
dd-wrt.v23_generic.bin version.
As Jeff, pointed out and I quote "You have to wait about 3 seconds for
the router to start its initial boot, or it will fail."
I found that if I waited about 4 seconds I was more successful. In any
case just play with the time it will go, it went on the third try for
me. I would not hesitate to tell anyone to upgrade to the DD-WRT firmware.
> Redirecting these site names to 127.0.0.1 is inefficient, because every
> lookup results in an http timeout as it tries to contact the http server o
> your local machine.
>
> It's better to redirect it to some fast http server where, presumably, the
> page won't be found.
I'm running an Apache web server on my local machine.
> I would get little portions of the "sorry, page not found" page where
> various advertising icons should appear.
I get a grinning pink and purple Cheshire cat. :-)
Ahem... Please use SP2, not SP1. See:
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/down.php?path=downloads%2Fdd-wrt.v23%20SP2%2Fstandard%2F&download=dd-wrt.v23_generic.bin>
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/down.php?path=downloads%2Fdd-wrt.v23+SP2/>
V23 SP3 is being worked on,
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/down.php?path=downloads%2Fbeta+releases%2Fdd-wrt.v23+SP3/>
but I had some stupid problem (forgot what it was) when I tried it, so
I went back to SP2. Watch out for the order and sequence of the dates
as it follows the European pattern of day-month-year instead of the
weird US pattern of month-day-year.
>As Jeff, pointed out and I quote "You have to wait about 3 seconds for
>the router to start its initial boot, or it will fail."
Remind me to add it to the DD-WRT wiki. I keep forgetting.
>I found that if I waited about 4 seconds I was more successful. In any
>case just play with the time it will go, it went on the third try for
>me. I would not hesitate to tell anyone to upgrade to the DD-WRT firmware.
Sheesh. OK, 4 seconds.
>It will work, no luck needed,
Agreed. I learned to make all my mistakes on the first few WRT54G and
GS routers. I think I manged to create a brick about 5 times. I also
rescued a few for friends about 4 times. In the early versions, it
was very easy to do. When the firmware upload was finished. The
display would claim that it was done and to hit the "continue" button.
The problem was that if you actually did that immediately after the
button appeared, you were guaranteed to have a bricked router when
done. Eventually, I learned that it was still doing something
internally and to wait a while. I'm sure 1 minute would have been
enough, but the rumor mill super-sized it until the official delay
time was about 5 minutes. So, I waited 5 minutes and everything was
just fine. I suspect that many of the older reports of failures were
due to this problem. The new reports seem to be due to user uploading
the wrong version or flavour of firmware. That's all too easy to do
as the download site organization is really, really, really awful.
However, I would prefer Brainslayer work on code instead of
organization and don't feel like complaining.
Incidentally, I have about 12 assorted DD-WRT installations (mostly
coffee shops), 3 OpenWRT installations, and know of about an equal
number used by the local free wireless horde. Except for one hacker
infested coffee shop frequented by the local university students,
everything is quite stable and functional. However, I have no idea
how well these work with P2P file sharing as most don't use or allow
it.
Also, I don't think the Buffalo firmware is really encrypted. I think
(not sure) that it's just compressed to make the firmware uploads go
faster. There's some type of simplistic decompression code in the
protected area of the flash NVRAM for TFTP uploads. It shouldn't be a
problem reverting DD-WRT to the stock firmware using TFTP. However, I
wouldn't try it using the web page firmware update from DD-WRT.
On 6 Feb 2007 10:39:37 -0800, "seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Peabody <waybackNO784SPA...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>>The router is a new Buffalo
>> >WHR-HP-G54, with firmware 1.40, using WPA TKIP encryption.
>
>I've got the same HP router, but running DD-WRT v24sp2 VOIP
There is not SP2 version of v24 yet. I think you mean V23 SP2.
>Somehow, without understanding, I wonder if this is similar to what
>is happening to us.
Sorry. I don't know.
>Jeff says:
>"If you install DD-WRT, you have have it reboot ocassionally to
>unscramble the buffers.
><http://www.informatione.gmxhome.de/DDWRT/Standard/V23final/Alive.html> "
>
>This link shows reboot "off". But that's just to show us where the
>control is right? You are suggesting that we want to turn reboot
>"On" and set an interval or time, right?
The aformentioned web pages were strictly to show the *AVAILABLE*
settings and do not necessarily reflect the correct settings. The
default for automatic reboots should be off or users would surely
claim their routers were rebooting "spontaneously" once a day.
>I know, I should be on the DD-WRT forum with many of these
>questions....just say so....
Good questions, but I don't have any answers without looking at the
source code. To preserve time and my sanity, I'll graciously decline
to do this, and suggest you ask those that know in the DD-WRT forums.
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:37:55 -0600, Peabody
<waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I hate to tell you this, but there are a number of threads
>on the DD-WRT forum asking the musical question, "Is QOS
>broken?" or something similar. And not just on Buffalos.
>You might want to take a look. Apparently a number of
>people are having problems with QOS.
Everyone has problems with QoS. That's because there's no single
optimum setup. Every system and user has different usage patterns
which will affect QoS setup. It also depends on what you're trying to
prioritize. You can optimize by application, by IP address, or by
reserved bandwidth. It doesn't help that different P2P BitTorrent
mutations use different protocols and ports. See:
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_of_Service>
<http://protocolinfo.org/wiki/Bittorrent>
for clues.
Hint: Every time you turn on a service, feature, filter, or protocol
on a small router, it eats RAM and CPU cycles.
This is my office WRT54G v3 with DD-WRT v23 SP2. I'll run the Buffalo
numbers when I have a chance. Compare the buffers (and others) with
yours and see if turning things on and off has an effect. You can
also see the numbers at:
<https://office.LearnByDestroying.com:8080>
Well, just like peabody, my problem has disappeared. I turned of QOS
and set it to reboot daily at 4am. Not scientific to change two
things, but there you are, it's better. If I'm following what you
are saying, I figure it leaves more overhead and cleans it out the
buffers. Seems that most computers like a good reboot every so often.
On Feb 6, 5:24 pm, Peabody <waybackNO784SPA...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the confession. :-) As I understand it, the
> Buffalos are more complicated to flash because the firmware
> images are supposed to be encrypted. So you can't use the
> built-in stock flashing option to flash DD-WRT (because
> it's expecting an encrypted file). And for the same reason,
> you can't use the built-in DD-WRT flashing option -
> assuming there is one - to re-flash the stock firmware
> (because its expecting a non-encrypted file). Hence the
> need for TPTF, as you say, both ways.
>
> Well, I knew I hadn't imagined all those "brick" reports.
> There appear to be more of them for Buffalos than for
> Linksys, and since there are probably far fewer of the
> former in the population, the difference is even more
> striking. I've seen somewhere a report that the Buffalo
> people are seeing too many bricked routers come back from
> attempted DD-WRT flashings. Well, that's their own fault if
> you ask me - all that silly encryption. You know, the
> Buffalo firmware source is available from their site. I
> guess that's because they use Linux and other open-source
> components, and have to make it available. But then, why
> the encryption?
>
I too was concerned about TFTP flashing the Buffalos. I'm over it. I
have now done two, a regular and an HP. Both were easy. I've just
did a linksys v2.2 yesterday also. That was just a tad easier, but
not much. I think that the Linksys later versions, that require a
prep file etc are truly the hardest and I imagine cause the most
trouble. The Buffalo is easy!!
As far as hearing about more bricked Buffalos. I think that it's just
that it's rare enough that there is no tutorial on debricking like
with the linksys. And Jeff is not saying that he's had more on the
Buffalo either. I believe what everyone says, just don't rush the
reboot and you are fine. To me, NOT doing something is easy. I would
be more worried if they were getting bricked due to a typo or timing
problem in TFTP.
As far as TFTP, it is a breeze. I opened command, found my directory
(C:) for the bin file and then pasted the exact command line into the
window from the DD-WRT wiki, adjusting the file name.
At this point, I had read enough to know there was a delay, so I
plugged in the router, waited for the indication (flashing LAN ports
to stop, IIRC) and hit enter.
On the first one, I got the timing wrong and it was not a problem,
just tried again a couple times until it caught it. On the second
router (HP) I got it right the first time. It tells you. At that
point, with any of these, including the easier of the Linksys you just
need to wait. Go get a snack, then come back and reboot as
instructed.
Once you have DD-WRT you will appreciate the increased stability,
control and monitoring. Sooner or later.
On 7 Feb 2007 10:02:27 -0800, "seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com>
wrote in <1170871347.916239.37300@s48g2000cws.googlegroups. com>:
>Well, just like peabody, my problem has disappeared. I turned of QOS
>and set it to reboot daily at 4am. Not scientific to change two
>things, but there you are, it's better. If I'm following what you
>are saying, I figure it leaves more overhead and cleans it out the
>buffers. Seems that most computers like a good reboot every so often.
If so, then the code is badly written.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Yep, you found it. Nice research. The WildPackets driver for Windoze
does support promiscuous mode.
There's also:
<http://www.cacetech.com/products/index.htm>
which is a driver built around a USB wi-fi radio.
>And it runs on Windows. Actually, reading through the PDFs,
>it looks like it might provide more information than is
>particularly useful, but it might be helpful to run now and
>then.
Re: Need help with flaky performance 
Linear Mode
