D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: scottjef on August 13, 2011, 09:29:31 AM
-
I just bought a DIR-655 to replace the unstable wireless functionality in my U-Verse 3801 RG. I have it set up in a simple AP fashion - 655 has static IP in same network as RG, DHCP is off on the 655, wireless off on the RG, 655 attached via LAN port - 655 Internet port is empty. So basically the 655 is acting as a wireless AP and switch on its 4 LAN ports.
The problem is with U-Verse TV signals going through the 655. When I change channels on a TV, the picture and sound last 10-13 seconds before locking up and the STB complains about loss of TV signal. A workaround is to route the TV signals through an old Netgear switch (actually a router being used as a switch) and simply jumper the 655 into that switch from one of its LAN ports with no other devices hooked to the 655.
I've tried enabling Multicast, disabling everything in sight (QOS, etc.) and even upgrading firmware to 2.03NA without success. Can anyone help identify the 655 setting that is shutting down the TV signal after 10-13 seconds?
Thank you,
Scott
-
What do the logs say?
-
What do the logs say?
I cleared the log and then re-created the problem. Here are the only 2 entries:
Aug 13 14:48:56 info [ 6516.570000] m_table count= 6 Add 01005e41 0e06000a port=2
Aug 13 14:48:37 info Log cleared by Administrator
Edit: I should mention that I had all 5 log types checked.
-
Wonder if using a AP device would be better then a router? Maybe a DAP-1525?
-
Wonder if using a AP device would be better then a router? Maybe a DAP-1525?
An Access Point would probably be sufficient, but the DAP-1525 looks to be a signal enhancer as opposed to an Access Point. I needed to completely replace the wireless functionality of the U-Verse 2WIRE router as it was incredibly unreliable and the DIR-655 looked to fill the bill and the price was right.
U-Verse techs tell me that the STBs are extremely flaky and my best bet is probably to use the current workaround and not pass anything other than wireless through the 655.
Thanks for your response.
-
And there are other APs available too. Hope the current work around works well though.
-
Based on your description that is the cross-over period when M$TV switches from ICC (Instant Channel Change,udp burst) over to multicast stream (IPTV channel). It seems the STB does not lock the multicast stream and the udp burst is depleted.
How the DIR impacts, not clear to me. What is the link status (ethernet) between RG and 655? Full , 100M?
-
Based on your description that is the cross-over period when M$TV switches from ICC (Instant Channel Change,udp burst) over to multicast stream (IPTV channel). It seems the STB does not lock the multicast stream and the udp burst is depleted.
How the DIR impacts, not clear to me. What is the link status (ethernet) between RG and 655? Full , 100M?
The ethernet link between the 655 and the RG is 100Mbit, as the RG is not gigabit-capable. The link status between the STBs that exhibit the problem and the 655 is a combination of gigabit from 655 to switches, and then 100 Mbit to the STB itself.
-
Based on your description that is the cross-over period when M$TV switches from ICC (Instant Channel Change,udp burst) over to multicast stream (IPTV channel). It seems the STB does not lock the multicast stream and the udp burst is depleted.
How the DIR impacts, not clear to me. What is the link status (ethernet) between RG and 655? Full , 100M?
Well I don't think multicast is enabled by default. Try turning it on? Advanced > Advanced Network
Enable Multicast Streams
This option must be enabled if any applications on the LAN participate in a multicast group. If you have a multimedia LAN application that is not receiving content as expected, try enabling this option.
-
Well I don't think multicast is enabled by default. Try turning it on? Advanced > Advanced Network
Enable Multicast Streams
This option must be enabled if any applications on the LAN participate in a multicast group. If you have a multimedia LAN application that is not receiving content as expected, try enabling this option.
You are correct that the 655 does not enable multicast by default. I enabled it early in the troubleshooting process and it did not change the problem. It remains enabled at this point.
-
Its probably some proprietary protocal. Have you found any record of someone doing it? I am sorry, I just have no experience with U-verse.
-
Its probably some proprietary protocal. Have you found any record of someone doing it? I am sorry, I just have no experience with U-verse.
My ancient Netgear RP614v2 has no problem passing the TV signals through.
-
Might have someone on here use teamviewer.com with you and remote in and check your router settings to be sure. ::)
-
Might have someone on here use teamviewer.com with you and remote in and check your router settings to be sure. ::)
I've got no problem with that. I can also post screenshots of the configuration pages if that helps. Don't forget that I am using the 655 as a simple switch, not a 'router' - nothing is hooked into the 'Internet' port on it, so firewall and SPI, etc. should not come into play (even though I have disabled them anyway).
-
And it's still not passing the data to the TV?
Have you tried a dedicated external switch of of the ISP Modem instead of the router and see if this works?
-
And it's still not passing the data to the TV?
Have you tried a dedicated external switch of of the ISP Modem instead of the router and see if this works?
If I understand you correctly, that's essentially the workaround that I am using, albeit thru the Netgear as switch. With the TV signals passing thru the 655, I consistently have the problem. With the Netgear set up as switch handling the TVs and the 655 hooked into one of its ports to provide a WAP, everything works. It's just the need to have the additional switch that bothers me - especially because the old switch is not gigabit-capable and the 655 is.
-
I understand that...just be aware that some of these routers and the back end switches are not totally independent as in a external dedicated switch. I have noticed that there is some router processing attached to the ports even when used in a switch or AP mode, the router seems to still have control over the ports. So I would recommend trying a external dedicated switch as a better alternative. There are lots of switches that are GB and fairly cheap now days. Sometimes this is a better alternative that helps with the headaches. ::)