Searching \ for '[OT] Recommendations for a Wireless Router?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=recommendations
Search entire site for: 'Recommendations for a Wireless Router?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Recommendations for a Wireless Router?'
2007\02\09@184304 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
The SMC unit cooked off. Every single bit of SMC equipment I've ever owned
has failed.

The Linksys BEFW11S4v4 with 1.52 firmware that I purchased to replace it has
a fatal bug: It locks up when attempting to view video from sites like
msn.com, etc... (Apparently a firmware bug, known since 2005 and Linksys has
not issued updated firmware! Grrrrr)

So the top rated unit at Amazon.com is the Zyxel X-550 but it has only been
out for a few months and I'm not sure if problems have had a chance to show.
Also, it looks flimsy. Also, I've had bad experiences with Zyxel modems
years ago.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BP2YLC

Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature, well
loved, and so on. I really don't care what OS the router is running, as long
as it works, so the Linux thing is only good for the resale value. I hate to
go with another Linksys after the BEFW11S4 fiasco, but I've run nothing but
Linksys wired routers at the office (BEFSX54 and BEFSR54) and have had ZERO
problems with them. Not a single bad review on Amazon, but then again, the
BEFW11S4 was well reviewed until a couple weeks after I purchased it!

Next is an OLD Microsoft(!?) Wireless Router ??? No, thank you!

Next is a D-Link DGL-4300 but the price is high $130! And it is fairly new,
and both the D-Link hubs I've owned have had problems with the AC adapter
plug.

Anyway, other than mixed experiences with Linksys (mostly good), bad
experiences with SMC, and the ratings on Amazon.com, I'm not sure how to
pick one out...

Any advice?

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com





2007\02\09@185236 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Hi James, am not sure what it is a "SMC" (it's friday late night... !)
But, I'm using Hamlet Wireless ADSL router and it's good enough (also
sold 2 to customers). DLink are usually good also. Have almost 0
experience with Linksys, sorry.

have a nice weekend :-))

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\02\09@185340 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 2/9/07, James Newtons Massmind <.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam@spam@massmind.org> wrote:
>
> Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature, well
> loved, and so on.

This one gets my vote.  It's so nice to be able to know what's going
on with the firmware, and be able to fix it if there is a problem.

There are a ton of sites out there with different firmware:  http://openwrt.org

I'd love to get one hacked with a serial port for a GPS, and a
bit-banged SD card interface to mount in my car.  I could map hotspots
all over the city.  Too many other projects on the go right now
though. :(

Alex

2007\02\09@185754 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 2/9/07, James Newtons Massmind <jamesnewtonspamKILLspammassmind.org> wrote:
>
> The SMC unit cooked off. Every single bit of SMC equipment I've ever owned
> has failed.
>
> The Linksys BEFW11S4v4 with 1.52 firmware that I purchased to replace it
> has
> a fatal bug: It locks up when attempting to view video from sites like
> msn.com, etc... (Apparently a firmware bug, known since 2005 and Linksys
> has
> not issued updated firmware! Grrrrr)


Check up on the DD-WRT site, their firmware may work on that router.

2007\02\09@190248 by Peter P.
picon face
James Newtons Massmind <jamesnewton <at> massmind.org> writes:

> Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature, well
> loved, and so on. I really don't care what OS the router is running, as long
> as it works, so the Linux thing is only good for the resale value. I hate to
> go with another Linksys after the BEFW11S4 fiasco, but I've run nothing but
> Linksys wired routers at the office (BEFSX54 and BEFSR54) and have had ZERO
> problems with them. Not a single bad review on Amazon, but then again, the
> BEFW11S4 was well reviewed until a couple weeks after I purchased it!

The Linux thing allows you to change the firmware if it acts up (there are
several choices). That's the point of using it. Also there is more peer review
on the 'L' software and I believe that you are far less likely to run into an
oops with it, at least not into problems already documented.

Other than that, using a high quality PSU instead of the original cheapo wall
wart may go a long way to prolong the life of the unit. Same for ventilation of
the box, which should never be more than lukewarm, no matter what brand it is.
This is in contrast with professional router/switches (19") which often have 4-6
fans to cool them down. Last, imho invest in a telco line filter/suppressor
rated for DSL. If half of what I know about the US residential power system is
true then that should be the first step, I think.

Peter


2007\02\09@190338 by Piclist

flavicon
face
I've been very happy my my Netgear, and it is what I recommend to people
all the time.  Whenever a friend asks me to setup a wireless network for
them, Netgear is what I buy for them, and so far there has been no
problems or complaints with any of them.  The one I currently use at
home is the WGR614 with the v4 (54Mbps) rom in it, but it is about  3
years old now.  I don't recall the models I've installed lately, but
they are all super G at 108Mbps.

-Mario



{Original Message removed}

2007\02\09@193444 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> > Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature,
> > well loved, and so on. I really don't care what OS the router is

<snip>

>
> The Linux thing allows you to change the firmware if it acts
> up (there are several choices). That's the point of using it.
> Also there is more peer review on the 'L' software and I
> believe that you are far less likely to run into an oops with
> it, at least not into problems already documented.

Yes, that is what I was thinking as well...

> Other than that, using a high quality PSU instead of the
> original cheapo wall wart may go a long way to prolong the
> life of the unit.

I always use a UPS and generally use Condor AC adapters.

> Same for ventilation of the box, which
> should never be more than lukewarm, no matter what brand it is.
> This is in contrast with professional router/switches (19")
> which often have 4-6 fans to cool them down.

I always have a small fan blowing on these boxes, but not a one of them
comes with an internal fan. The SMC router was literally a sealed metal box.
NO VENTS! How amazing that it fried... It was given to me, so...

> Last, imho
> invest in a telco line filter/suppressor rated for DSL. If
> half of what I know about the US residential power system is
> true then that should be the first step, I think.

I'm on cable, but I did use a filter when I had DSL, and do use one at the
office where we have DSL. I also recommend it.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam.....piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


2007\02\09@203747 by Dave King

flavicon
face
Just to chime in.

Linksys you need to look at with a real careful eye. We had 4 fail
right out of the box last year. And we had used linksys on everything
wired and wireless and all failed within about a 6 month period. The
worst part is Linksys farmed out its customer service to someplace
in India. We had problems with accents and having to explain terms
to them so they could look things up. Shortly afterwards all the
linksys boxes were replaced by d-links or sonicwalls and we've
been working since.

Dave

{Original Message removed}

2007\02\09@204150 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:42 PM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature,
> well loved, and so on. I really don't care what OS the router is
> running, as long as it works, so the Linux thing is only good for the
> resale value.

Well, "the linux thing" would also allow you to run third-party
(open source) software on the router should the default software
turn out to have bugs or missing features.  There is a bit of
confidence to be gotten from the knowledge that you can "fix it
yourself", even if only in theory.

The linksys business model is a bit weird.  As I understand it,
very little hw design or sw development is done by actual linksys
(or cisco) employees; it's more of a "develop specs and farm out
the easy stuff to random overseas developers."  I don't think it's
even likely that two linksys products have SW developed by the same
developer, though perhaps there's some common shared code.  This
means that problems with one product don't necessarily carry over
onto other products.  And "of course" low end consumer products
don't allow for much in the way of software upgrades or bugfixes.

There are the other linksys routers too; doesn't the non-linux
WRT54G have a pretty good reputation (at a lower price point than
the linux-based version.)

BillW

2007\02\09@215231 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/9/07, Alex Harford <EraseMEharfordspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, James Newtons Massmind <jamesnewtonspamspam_OUTmassmind.org> wrote:
> >
> > Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature, well
> > loved, and so on.
>
> This one gets my vote.  It's so nice to be able to know what's going
> on with the firmware, and be able to fix it if there is a problem.

Me too.  I have a WRT54GS that had the older chipset so it's basically
a WRT54GL, I even got lucky enough to buy it around the time Linksys
put HUGE amounts of unnecessary flash and RAM in it (version 3 I
think?).

I run DD-WRT on it, and it's done everything I could ever possibly
think of needing to do, and still has features not turned on that I
haven't even used, and never will.

A friend has a later model and complains that throughput across the
4-port switch is NOT truly 100 Mb/s or even close.  I haven't ever
really tested it, but have no complaints about the speed on mine, nor
any problems with the wireless, and I have QoS turned on and other
features to help the VoIP end-point out a little... seems to help...
even though I can't control my downstream B/W... it keeps things
sounding pretty good out-bound when I overload the DSL pipe by
accident while on the phone.

Also you may want to check the DD-WRT and OpenWRT sites if you're
thinking about alternative firmware -- many of the so-called
"non-Linux" versions of the Linksys routers are once again
supported... via some creative (as always) hacking.

Nate

2007\02\10@031036 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
Hi James,

Try a MIMO router (it has three antennas, two for RX and one for TX)
the computer must have also a MIMO wireless board, else those three
antennas for the router are useless.

Vasile

On 2/9/07, James Newtons Massmind <@spam@jamesnewtonKILLspamspammassmind.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\02\10@041644 by Tobias Gogolin

picon face
I recommend only open source routers!
Think about the potential crisis situation that could happen - the open
source router would readily become wireless mesh networks, able to route
data and phone calls
Potentially every router could become an open source router, but why depend
on hackers to do it under pressure once crisis has hit... better to go with
something they had time to play with now...

dd-wrt.com has a list of supported routers in their wiki
http://dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported_Devices

one of the best ones I the on that is the Linksys wrt300n

cheers

Tobias


On 2/10/07, Vasile Surducan <RemoveMEpiclist9TakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\02\10@043935 by Randy Glenn

picon face
On 2/9/07, Nate Duehr <RemoveMEnatespamTakeThisOuTnatetech.com> wrote:
> Me too.  I have a WRT54GS that had the older chipset so it's basically
> a WRT54GL, I even got lucky enough to buy it around the time Linksys
> put HUGE amounts of unnecessary flash and RAM in it (version 3 I
> think?).

I also recommend the WRT54G/GS series - not a lick of trouble from
mine (the ultra-loaded GS model), and it's been going nearly 2 years.
I tend to change settings fairly often (and so it gets reset a fair
bit), but a friend's has had uptimes as long as 2 months using the
Sveasoft Talisman firmware.

The alternative firmwares let you do things like Static DHCP (a
notebook is set for dynamic IP but gets the same IP at home every
time) and router-hosted VPN.

> Nate
--
-Randy Glenn
Computer Eng. and Mgt. Year V, McMaster University
Regional Student Representative, IEEE Canada

randy.glenn-at-gmail.com - glennrb-at-mcmaster.ca
randy.glenn-at-computer.org - randy_glenn-at-ieee.org
http://www.randyglenn.ca

2007\02\10@044332 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
I have exactly this one with V6 at home. How did you've measured the
maximum speed of the link is indeed 108Mbps ?

thx,
Vasile

On 2/9/07, piclistEraseMEspam.....mmendes.com <EraseMEpiclistspammmendes.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2007\02\10@100609 by peter green

flavicon
face

> There are the other linksys routers too; doesn't the non-linux
> WRT54G have a pretty good reputation (at a lower price point than
> the linux-based version.)
i thought it had a somewhat worse reputation, there were certainly lots of reports of problems with it reported on /. after news of the change broke (afaict the WRT54Gl is the same as the old WRT54G while current WRT54G units have half the memory and come loaded with a vxworks based system).



2007\02\10@103201 by Neil Cherry

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> The SMC unit cooked off. Every single bit of SMC equipment I've ever owned
> has failed.
>
> The Linksys BEFW11S4v4 with 1.52 firmware that I purchased to replace it has
> a fatal bug: It locks up when attempting to view video from sites like
> msn.com, etc... (Apparently a firmware bug, known since 2005 and Linksys has
> not issued updated firmware! Grrrrr)

I've never liked the Linksys B* series, I've seen, heard, and
experienced lots of problems with them. IMO, once a router gets old
(no longer supported or later in it's life and about to loose
support) I find the maker tends to ignore fixes.

> Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature, well
> loved, and so on. I really don't care what OS the router is running, as long
> as it works, so the Linux thing is only good for the resale value. I hate to
> go with another Linksys after the BEFW11S4 fiasco, but I've run nothing but
> Linksys wired routers at the office (BEFSX54 and BEFSR54) and have had ZERO
> problems with them. Not a single bad review on Amazon, but then again, the
> BEFW11S4 was well reviewed until a couple weeks after I purchased it!

I like the WRT54G, GS and GL series, I have the G (V4.0) and the GL.
I may have need to get a the new WRT300N but I'm really interested in
the WRT350N.

Take a look at OpenWRT supported hardware here:

http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware

I believe that the supported hardware list will probably be the same
for DD-WRT.

> Next is an OLD Microsoft(!?) Wireless Router ??? No, thank you!

There is a listing for a microsoft router:

http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware#head-a5d1e85de68aa0dd3786c13ec68a362d94267fac

If it's the same you may be able to upgrade. :-) Oh the sweet irony!

I've been spoiled by the power of the Cisco routers (need to figure
out where to put the 7613 ;-). So I like and use various features of
OpenWRT. I went as far as to write a few chapters in my book devoted
to the subject of wireless, Linksys and OpenWRT.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       RemoveMEncherryEraseMEspamEraseMElinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2007\02\10@132912 by Piclist

flavicon
face
I haven't actually done any tests to see if the transfer is trully at
108, but what I have done is try to connect from diferent distances from
the router, most of the time outside.  As the signal degrades over the
distance the speeds (indicated in the taskbar icons) do switch to lower
or higher depending on the quality of the signal.  This was done for a
very picky friend who wanted to be able to use his laptop while on a
floter in his pool (I know, I wouldn't do it, but he wanted it)

Obviously, you can only get 108 when using an 108 router with an 108
card.


-Mario



{Original Message removed}

2007\02\10@140619 by Neil Cherry

picon face
piclist@mmendes.com wrote:
> I haven't actually done any tests to see if the transfer is trully at
> 108, but what I have done is try to connect from diferent distances from
> the router, most of the time outside.  As the signal degrades over the
> distance the speeds (indicated in the taskbar icons) do switch to lower
> or higher depending on the quality of the signal.  This was done for a
> very picky friend who wanted to be able to use his laptop while on a
> floter in his pool (I know, I wouldn't do it, but he wanted it)

I did a test to see if a draft-n or pre-n router could keep up with the
throughput and I managed to get 80M, one-way, 1500B packets, bridging,
lan-lan, no LAN-WAN (I didn't have the matching N nic). I thing my
traffic generator ran out of steam before the router did. It was a
Netgear WGT634U (single antenna, non-MIMO). I got it cheap and didn't
really care about the N at the time.

> Obviously, you can only get 108 when using an 108 router with an 108
> card.

We're still stuck where you need the matching NIC to the router as
802.11n isn't a standard. That's causing a lot of grief for me as
I can't get a Linux driver for an 802.11n device. I can use NDIS-
Wrapper but I'd rather have a native driver.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       RemoveMEncherryspam_OUTspamKILLspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2007\02\11@035210 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 2/10/07, RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspamspammmendes.com <EraseMEpiclistspamspamspamBeGonemmendes.com> wrote:
> I haven't actually done any tests to see if the transfer is trully at
> 108, but what I have done is try to connect from diferent distances from
> the router, most of the time outside.  As the signal degrades over the
> distance the speeds (indicated in the taskbar icons) do switch to lower
> or higher depending on the quality of the signal.  This was done for a
> very picky friend who wanted to be able to use his laptop while on a
> floter in his pool (I know, I wouldn't do it, but he wanted it)
>
> Obviously, you can only get 108 when using an 108 router with an 108
> card.

The maximum speed allowed in 802.11g standard (2.4Ghz) is 54Mbps,
named as 108, page14 of 802.11g standard, downloadable here:

http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.11.html

Do I miss something ? or there is available a newer specification ?

thx,
Vasile

2007\02\11@072602 by peter green

flavicon
face
>  The maximum speed allowed in 802.11g standard (2.4Ghz) is 54Mbps,
> named as 108, page14 of 802.11g standard, downloadable here:
>
> standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.11.html
>
> Do I miss something ? or there is available a newer specification ?
iirc you can't get the latest version of the spec for free and 802.11n is a fairly recent addition.


2007\02\11@111301 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:52 -0800, Vasile Surducan wrote:
> On 2/10/07, RemoveMEpiclistKILLspamspammmendes.com <piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmmendes.com> wrote:
> > I haven't actually done any tests to see if the transfer is trully at
> > 108, but what I have done is try to connect from diferent distances from
> > the router, most of the time outside.  As the signal degrades over the
> > distance the speeds (indicated in the taskbar icons) do switch to lower
> > or higher depending on the quality of the signal.  This was done for a
> > very picky friend who wanted to be able to use his laptop while on a
> > floter in his pool (I know, I wouldn't do it, but he wanted it)
> >
> > Obviously, you can only get 108 when using an 108 router with an 108
> > card.
>
>  The maximum speed allowed in 802.11g standard (2.4Ghz) is 54Mbps,
> named as 108, page14 of 802.11g standard, downloadable here:
>
> standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.11.html
>
> Do I miss something ? or there is available a newer specification ?

For pure g, yes, 54Mbps is the fastest.

However, because the IEEE has taken a stupidly long time to come out
with the next standard (n), the manufacturers didn't want to wait (g
hardware had reach commodity prices, not much margin when prices get
that low). So they started developing extensions to g that could go
faster. Most claim speeds of up to 108Mbps (and often improved distance
specs).

The rub is they are NOT compatible between different chipsets. This
means if you want a 108Mbps network (often called super g), you must
ensure every bit of equipment uses the same line of chipsets. Easiest
way to ensure this is to buy the same brand, but even that isn't 100%
since sometimes brands change chipsets, meaning the older 108Mbps
hardware may not work with the newer 108Mbps hardware.

On top of this confusion is the MIMO or "pre n" stuff. Usually you can
tell this stuff separately from the "normal" 108Mbps stuff by the number
of antennas, MIMO usually has three, although sometimes one is
"internal", further mucking up the market.

Personally, I won't touch any feature beyond 54Mbps until n is fully out
there. My router is capable of 108Mbps, but I've never even enabled it.

The part that really bugs me is the IEEE members. They are really the
ones to blame for the mess that is WiFi right now. They kept arguing and
squabbling, holding up any chance at a reasonable time period for the
next standard. Consumer confusion is high, interoperability is in the
tubes, and even worse, many of the MIMO technologies out there right now
will KILL your g bandwidth completely. MIMO technologies usually take
two WiFi channels. Despite the numbering, in the 2.4GHz band there are
only 3 non overlapping WiFi channels (1, 6 and 11). If you are using g
on channel 6 and your neighbour powers up most MIMO routers, there's a
good chance that your bandwidth will drop like a stone. Newer MIMO
routers are better then older ones, but the problem is still there.
draft-n products supposedly are MUCH better, but there is still chance
for the problem appearing.

Anyways, for more information try http://www.tomshardware.com, lots of
articles there on what's out there and what to avoid, if you REALLY want
to go faster then 54Mbps. Me, I run a cable...

TTYL

2007\02\11@111403 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 12:25 +0000, peter green wrote:
> >  The maximum speed allowed in 802.11g standard (2.4Ghz) is 54Mbps,
> > named as 108, page14 of 802.11g standard, downloadable here:
> >
> > standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.11.html
> >
> > Do I miss something ? or there is available a newer specification ?
> iirc you can't get the latest version of the spec for free and 802.11n is a fairly recent addition.

FWIW the 802.11n spec is NOT final yet, so whatever you find is liable
to change at least a little. TTYL

2007\02\11@112333 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
I have the non-linux WRT54G
It works well but sometimes my laptop will not connect to it. I don't
know the exact reason but I speculate that it's quite cold in that room.
--
Martin K

James Newtons Massmind wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\02\11@114725 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 2/11/07, Herbert Graf <KILLspammailinglist3spamBeGonespamfarcite.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Herbert,
Thank you very much for your nice comments and links.
I'm to my second WIFI/WIMAX design project and those different
standards are really puzzling me. The same s!it is on
802.[1]16e2003/2005.
One of the most interesting situations is WIFI on 802.11b/g with MIMO
features at 54Mbps.Those cards (which must be used with routers having
the same feature) are increasing the speed and/or coverage keeping low
the datarate.

Vasile

2007\02\12@104033 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>There are the other linksys routers too; doesn't the non-linux
>WRT54G have a pretty good reputation (at a lower price point
>than the linux-based version.)

It looks like it runs some form of *nix like system - look at the log to see
the commands it uses, they all have a *nix type look to them.

2007\02\12@105151 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> Next down is the Linksys WRT54GL
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/B000BTL0OA Which is mature, well
> loved, and so on.

I have a WRT54G that I bought off eBay. I think the guy sold it because it
didn't work. I downloaded a software update and that got it purring again.

Later I got an ADSL2 modem which is in the same box, so they stack. Just
wish I could find out why it keeps disconnecting, looks very much like noise
or crosstalk on the line.

2007\02\12@105318 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I have the non-linux WRT54G

Me too.

>It works well but sometimes my laptop will not connect to it. I don't
>know the exact reason but I speculate that it's quite cold in that room.

Mine does this occasionally too, and when it does it seems to get an IP
address of 168.254.w.x instead of the 168.192.y.z. When this happens it does
seem to be when the signal is very low when logging on.

2007\02\12@111040 by John Pfaff

picon face
I didn't think either of them (54G and 54GL) ran Linux out-of-the-box,
but there are Linux-based firmwares out there that give a lot more
functionality than the Linksys-supplied one that will run on the 54GL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G

Alan B. Pearce wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\02\12@112504 by Alex Harford

face picon face
No, the original G and all of the GLs ran Linux out of the box.  It's
just that most things that would be useful (ie the ability to login
though telnet/ssh) were disabled.

The new G's run VxWorks.

On 2/12/07, John Pfaff <spamBeGonejpfaff1528spamKILLspamverizon.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\02\12@120503 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/12/07, Alan B. Pearce <.....A.B.Pearcespam_OUTspamrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >There are the other linksys routers too; doesn't the non-linux
> >WRT54G have a pretty good reputation (at a lower price point
> >than the linux-based version.)
>
> It looks like it runs some form of *nix like system - look at the log to see
> the commands it uses, they all have a *nix type look to them.

Older versions ran Linux, newer versions run VMWare.  Almost all are
supported by Linux now, though -- the Linux folks keep on porting to
various hardware.  Only way to know for sure is know what VERSION of
the WRT54G(S) you have and then do some hunting on the alternative
firmware sites...

Nate

2007\02\12@120719 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/12/07, Alan B. Pearce <TakeThisOuTA.B.Pearce.....spamTakeThisOuTrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >I have the non-linux WRT54G
>
> Me too.
>
> >It works well but sometimes my laptop will not connect to it. I don't
> >know the exact reason but I speculate that it's quite cold in that room.
>
> Mine does this occasionally too, and when it does it seems to get an IP
> address of 168.254.w.x instead of the 168.192.y.z. When this happens it does
> seem to be when the signal is very low when logging on.

That's "zeroconf" doing that... a "feature" that's annoying and dumb.
Windows machines and Mac machines will also do it on "modern"
versions.

The idea was that if you couldn't get a DHCP network address, the
machine would assign itself one from a block of 168.254.x.x addresses
and then ARP to make sure no one else was on that address, supposedly
facilitating keeping things like LAN filesharing and other features
going in small IT shops where they don't even know what an IP is...
when the DHCP server is down/missing.

Nate

2007\02\12@122156 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:08 AM, John Pfaff wrote:

> I didn't think either of them (54G and 54GL) ran Linux out-of-the-box

The 54GL (or the original 54) ran linux-based SW by default, and there
was a big stink because Linksys/cisco wasn't publishing the gpl-related
source code as required.  The newer version used vxworks (?) and had
less memory and linux wouldn't fit (open source zealots saw this as
sour grapes obnoxiousness on linksys's part, but it was just a cost
reduction effort.)  There are assorter other cisco products that never
ran linux that have had linux or linux-like sw ported to them anyway.
(for instance the venerable cisco-25xx)

Many operating systems are unix-like in their command structure without
actually being based on unix...

BillW

2007\02\12@133030 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:

>>> There are the other linksys routers too; doesn't the non-linux WRT54G
>>> have a pretty good reputation (at a lower price point than the
>>> linux-based version.)
>>
>> It looks like it runs some form of *nix like system - look at the log
>> to see the commands it uses, they all have a *nix type look to them.
>
> Older versions ran Linux, newer versions run VMWare.  

IIRC that is VxWorks for the newer routers. (VMWare is a hardware emulator,
VxWorks is a realtime OS.)

Gerhard

2007\02\12@135648 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
At home I'm running a Linksys WRT54G (I don't remember which version) and
a router from http://www.fon.com . Both have worked well, though I sat a
fan on top of the WRT54G, as it seemed to stop working when it was warm.

Somewhat related, these routers have a single IP address on the WAN side.
What do I do if I need to deal with two IP addresses (and want to port
forward one to some machines and the other to other machines)? One
solution I've thought of is to put in a hub between the output of the DSL
modem and two routers. Would this work? Other solutions?

THANKS!

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2007\02\12@141727 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Harold Hallikainen wrote:

> Somewhat related, these routers have a single IP address on the WAN side.

How can you have 2 IPs on the WAN side? IT should be just one, the one
you're assigned.

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\02\12@143510 by peter green

flavicon
face

> Somewhat related, these routers have a single IP address on the WAN side.
> What do I do if I need to deal with two IP addresses (and want to port
> forward one to some machines and the other to other machines)? One
> solution I've thought of is to put in a hub between the output of the DSL
> modem and two routers. Would this work?
if it supports two pcs directly conneceted via a hub it should have no problems with two router

>Other solutions?
a WRT54G with custom firmware should be able to do it.


2007\02\12@144106 by peter green

flavicon
face

> No, the original G and all of the GLs ran Linux out of the box.  It's
> just that most things that would be useful (ie the ability to login
> though telnet/ssh) were disabled.
>
> The new G's run VxWorks.
though i belive it *IS* possible to run linux on them

they have far less ram though so its better to get the GL considering the marginal if any price difference.


2007\02\12@152528 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 20:17 +0100, Dario Greggio wrote:
> Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>
> > Somewhat related, these routers have a single IP address on the WAN side.
>
> How can you have 2 IPs on the WAN side? IT should be just one, the one
> you're assigned.

Actually it's very common, outside of the "home router" space to have
MANY different IPs, usually a range of IPs.

That said, this again is something usually beyond what a typical home
router is for. Most home users have one IP and that's enough.

The switch+2 home router idea will work. Other options include again
putting a modified linux firmware into one of the Linksys routers and
just setting up a second connection.

TTYL

2007\02\12@161158 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:


> Actually it's very common, outside of the "home router" space to have
> MANY different IPs, usually a range of IPs.

I see Herbert, yeah, indeed I do work with some companies which do have
them.
I simply did not consider it was the case with this post :-)


--
Ciao, Dario

2007\02\12@183819 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/12/07, Gerhard Fiedler <TakeThisOuTlistsKILLspamspamspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> > Older versions ran Linux, newer versions run VMWare.
>
> IIRC that is VxWorks for the newer routers. (VMWare is a hardware emulator,
> VxWorks is a realtime OS.)

Oops.  Yeah I use both here at work, and mixed 'em up.  VMWare being
the virtualization software for OS's and VxWorks being an RTOS used on
many embedded systems.

Nate

2007\02\12@190245 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/12/07, Harold Hallikainen <.....haroldspamRemoveMEhallikainen.org> wrote:

> Somewhat related, these routers have a single IP address on the WAN side.
> What do I do if I need to deal with two IP addresses (and want to port
> forward one to some machines and the other to other machines)? One
> solution I've thought of is to put in a hub between the output of the DSL
> modem and two routers. Would this work? Other solutions?

There'd be a number of ways to do it with alternative firmware, as you
really have a mini-Linux box and if you know Linux well enough to add
sub-IP's to an interface and much with iptables (if you need the
firewall to do anything), anything's possible... probably not the
"easy" way through the GUI, though -- and any GUI changes would
probably muck up your customized setup.

On my WRT54GS v 2 or v 3 (don't remember... the one with more RAM...
heh...) the internal 4-port switch also supports VLAN tagging in
hardware, something rarely seen in small SOHO routers - and you have
to access it via the command line (ssh to the router, and you end up
in a BusyBox terminal session, it's pretty much "standard Linux" from
there with the DD-WRT firmware loaded)...

So a while ago I had built a couple of different VLAN's and hung
bigger switches off of the little router... so I could have a "DMZ"
for machines that had public addresses while still being able to
fiddle with iptables for some modicum of firewall settings in the
Linksys...

I don't use that configuration now, but it's an example of how
powerful the little routers can be, when loaded with the "right"
software.  Software/firmware aimed at the Joe Sixpack crowd, available
direct from Linksys is pretty powerful also, but not nearly as good as
having full-blown Linux running inside the little embedded box,
complete with command line.  If you know Linux at all, it's worth
switching to the alternate firmware...

VPN support of various flavors, QoS tagging, various odd-ball wireless
configurations (example, right now I have multiple 802.11g clients as
well as a WDS connected stock Linksys WAP54G connected at the same
time in bridged mode) are all in the GUI of many of the alternative
firmware, and more "power" is available at the command-prompt if it's
needed.

Most people probably just don't need these features, but I'm hooked
since I'm a networking junkie...

The DD-WRT wiki comes in handy for various configurations and setups
of various things...
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>

The FAQ and HOW-TO's are usually pretty good -- as good as anything
else that's "community supported" anyway.

And the "About" page describes all the multitude of features better
than I ever could...
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/What_is_DD-WRT%3F>

Nate

2007\02\12@191915 by peter green

flavicon
face

> On my WRT54GS v 2 or v 3 (don't remember... the one with more RAM...
> heh...) the internal 4-port switch also supports VLAN tagging in
> hardware, something rarely seen in small SOHO routers
i wonder how many other home routers have one in but just don't advertise the fact.

btw vlan support *IS* used by the standard firmware on the wrt54g. The core of the wrt54g only has one ethernet port but through the use of vlans this can talk seperately to the lan side ports and the wan side port on the switch.



2007\02\12@193340 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 2/12/07, peter green <RemoveMEplugwashspamspamBeGonep10link.net> wrote:
>
> > On my WRT54GS v 2 or v 3 (don't remember... the one with more RAM...
> > heh...) the internal 4-port switch also supports VLAN tagging in
> > hardware, something rarely seen in small SOHO routers
> i wonder how many other home routers have one in but just don't advertise the fact.
>
> btw vlan support *IS* used by the standard firmware on the wrt54g. The core of the wrt54g only has one ethernet port but through the use of vlans this can talk seperately to the lan side ports and the wan side port on the switch.

True, it's just barely used... two VLAN's... "WAN" and "LAN".

With the alternative firmware I can assign a separate VLAN to each
port, if I like... and have...

Unfortunately "WLAN" isn't part of this game, it's bridged (even with
alternative firmware) to the "LAN" VLAN.  Can't have it all without
ponying up for a real router...  (GRIN)... but you can get close!

Nate

2007\02\12@194552 by peter green

flavicon
face

> Unfortunately "WLAN" isn't part of this game, it's bridged (even with
> alternative firmware) to the "LAN" VLAN.  Can't have it all without
> ponying up for a real router...  (GRIN)... but you can get close!
isn't that a linux software bridge that can easilly be removed if you so desire

at least thats what http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/article.php/20050203220950714 says

one idea i had for theese boxes would be a cheap "fully quarantined network", with the price of theese things you can make every port its own segment and therefore protect them from each other, ideal for outlets used to fix up infested PCs or for public internet access points etc.



2007\02\16@053843 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Mine does this occasionally too, and when it does it seems to get
>> an IP address of 168.254.w.x instead of the 168.192.y.z. When this
>> happens it does seem to be when the signal is very low when logging on.
>
>That's "zeroconf" doing that... a "feature" that's annoying and dumb.
>Windows machines and Mac machines will also do it on "modern" versions.
>
>The idea was that if you couldn't get a DHCP network address, the
>machine would assign itself one from a block of 168.254.x.x addresses
>and then ARP to make sure no one else was on that address, supposedly
>facilitating keeping things like LAN filesharing and other features
>going in small IT shops where they don't even know what an IP is...
>when the DHCP server is down/missing.

Ah, thanks for the explanation Nate.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...