D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => DIR-655 => Routers / COVR => Beta Code! => Topic started by: hispanico on February 27, 2009, 02:49:52 PM
-
I see today dated a new beta: dir655_firmware_122b05_beta
Some news regarding this beta ?
Thank
Hyspa
-
No.....good find
-
So then where is this beta out of curiosity?
-
Two things I have noticed is there is a graphical image verification on the login screen and the version say 1.22 firmware. The verification can be turned off for those who do not need or want it.
(http://www.picamatic.com/show/2009/02/28/02/19/2495752_bigthumb.jpg) (http://www.picamatic.com/view/2495752_login/)
-
Changes
* graphical verification (on by default, can be switched off)
* SecureSpot (on by default, can be switched off)
BUGS after restoring 1.21beta11 config (resetting to default/factory settings solved it)
(crash router = disconnect wired and wireless connections and go back to log in screen)
* random disconnects and reboots
* saving random changed settings crashes router 3 out of 5 times
* Changing to random directory (Tools, Advanced etc) crashes router 3 out of 5 times
* Switching wireless channel from AUTO to manual and saving change crashes router 3 out of 5 times
* Changing wireless channel crashes router 3 out of 5 times
* Config is not inherited, manual upload works
A2 version
-
Like I said in the other thread, this beta is running fine for me.
-
edited the post... ::)
-
Once more I ask the question: Where is this new beta? I've scoured this forum and cannot find any reference to it.
-
CLICK HERE (ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/dir655/Firmware/dir655_firmware_122b05_beta.zip) for the 1.2205 firmware.
-
Hooray, no more prompt to instal MSXML 5.0.
-
Can you indicate what hardware versions being tested on. Need to evaluate stability on A4 versions (I only have A3 for testing, have not tried it yet). Thanks.
-
The wireless disconnects by the Wii being in Standby mode have seemed to stop.
-
The wireless disconnects by the Wii being in Standby mode have seemed to stop.
I never had that problem but I use a static IP on the WII then reserve the IP in the router.
-
I had it reserved also. When WiConnect24 was on and in standby mode it would authenticate and de-authenticate every few minutes. When standby mode was turned to just off it no longer would occur.
-
Spoke too soon, the aut/deauth stuff with the Wii is back.
-
Is this with securespot on? If you disable the SPAM in the securespot services it fixes the wireless disconnects for me
-
No, SecureSpot is off. This has happened ever since we got the wii, not a big deal as I know what is causing it. I would turn off the Standyby WiiConnect24 but the wife seems to like the weather and news channel on it.
-
Dir-655 A4 Revision handles firmware (beta 1.22b05) fine. But Once I attempt to setup Ntp Server the router gets a bad case of reboot hiccups and OpenDNS no longer states on their website the "You're using OpenDNS," banner when I visit their site. But that may just be their new site setup. And yes, I have set them as my DNS server on Internet Setup and DNS relay is checked in Network setup. I use VLC to play media via SharePort no errors yet. I haven't attempted a file transfer yet to check the speed ;D
-blaquesmith
-
I had it reserved also. When WiConnect24 was on and in standby mode it would authenticate and de-authenticate every few minutes. When standby mode was turned to just off it no longer would occur.
I don't use Wiiconnect24 as standby mode is not really standby since the processor and WiFi are still turned on.
When the Wii is fully turned on it uses about 17w and in standby (with Wiiconnect24 on) about 10w.
When WiiConnect24 is turned off the Wii only uses about 1w in standby.
-
Dir-655 A4 Revision handles firmware (beta 1.22b05) fine. But Once I attempt to setup Ntp Server the router gets a bad case of reboot hiccups and OpenDNS no longer states on their website the "You're using OpenDNS," banner when I visit their site. But that may just be their new site setup. And yes, I have set them as my DNS server on Internet Setup and DNS relay is checked in Network setup. I use VLC to play media via SharePort no errors yet. I haven't attempted a file transfer yet to check the speed ;D
-blaquesmith
Same issue with the NTP on H/W A2, I think it's the firmware (I restored to factory defaults before I changed the NTP server and same thing- and FYI, I was trying to use pool.ntp.org as the server.)
First real bug I've seen so far in this new firmware, everything else (for me) seems to be working great.
-
If it is specific ntp servers that cause the issue: don't worry, every time server gives the same time, so you might as well use the standard Dlink ones. I honestly can not think of one reason the use another specific ntp server. Who would like to try? ;D
-
I honestly can not think of one reason the use another specific ntp server. Who would like to try? ;D
Failure to sync the time is why I use a different NTP server (Microsoft).
[INFO] Tue Mar 03 19:57:02 2009 Time synchronization failed
[INFO] Tue Mar 03 19:56:59 2009 Requesting time from 207.232.83.70
[INFO] Tue Mar 03 19:56:59 2009 Time server ntp1.dlink.com is at IP address 207.232.83.70
-
The Windows timeserver is the one failing me. Dlink works fine. Perhaps a temporary situation, But the router keeps a good pace in its internal clock afaik.
-
If it is specific ntp servers that cause the issue: don't worry, every time server gives the same time, so you might as well use the standard Dlink ones. I honestly can not think of one reason the use another specific ntp server. Who would like to try? ;D
But if it worked before...why not now? Thank God this kind of change didn't affect the manual input on the dynamic DNS updating page where OpenDNS still isn't represented in the drop-down and the information must be input manually.
I'm getting the feeling that this ''tinkering'' toward a new release is simply not a priority. Things that worked are being broken while broken things are fixed. I know this is a beta but this whole process is beginning to seem fall under the ''half-arsed'' category.
With brand new devices from D-Link showing up on the market, it seems to me that's where the bulk of customer care and technical support is going to go now. So it looks like the wait just got longer for the loyal D-Link DIR-655 crowd.
This D-Link firmware update for the 655 seems to be the new MobileMe fiasco. The good news-bad news is that months (is that optimistic?) down the line when everything is finally working properly, many will have bailed for something reliable. You certainly won't get any new love from Mac users over the USB thing either.
I'm as of this post sending a note off to both Tekzilla and GeekBrief noting a general disappointment with their ''rave'' reviews of the DIR-655 as a great alternative to the overpriced Apple Airport line of networking products. I'm sure there is another non-Apple and non-D-Link device out there that one of them will find to rave about.
-
Now I know that I am going to regret this, but I am not personally aware of the MobileMe fiasco. A search for MobileMe or "mobile me" turns up 3 posts where you call it a fiasco, but no meaningful information.
Looking at the posts it turns up I might add that it appears that you are specifically unhappy with your purchase (to the point of giving nearly identical rants with vague references in multiple threads) but keep working with it. In fact you state that we have failed you for not being Apple enough, but have clearly stated the Apple solution is no better (or even worse). I would go as far as to say that I am unclear on exactly what you issue is given what I have seen.
So care to let me in on this happening you are so upset about, especially the MobileMe fiasco?
P.S. The "USB Thing" you reference isn't a Mac love or no Mac Love issue, it is a feature requested by many people. One that I am going to start just referencing Lycan's and mine old posts explaining why it will never happen and we wish you would quit asking. It has nothing to do with OS.
P.P.S. Yes, I wrote this just to be the fourth post on a search for MobileMe
-
Now I know that I am going to regret this, but I am not personally aware of the MobileMe fiasco. A search for MobileMe or "mobile me" turns up 3 posts where you call it a fiasco, but no meaningful information.
Looking at the posts it turns up I might add that it appears that you are specifically unhappy with your purchase (to the point of giving nearly identical rants with vague references in multiple threads) but keep working with it. In fact you state that we have failed you for not being Apple enough, but have clearly stated the Apple solution is no better (or even worse). I would go as far as to say that I am unclear on exactly what you issue is given what I have seen.
So care to let me in on this happening you are so upset about, especially the MobileMe fiasco?
P.S. The "USB Thing" you reference isn't a Mac love or no Mac Love issue, it is a feature requested by many people. One that I am going to start just referencing Lycan's and mine old posts explaining why it will never happen and we wish you would quit asking. It has nothing to do with OS.
P.P.S. Yes, I wrote this just to be the fourth post on a search for MobileMe
I don't doubt I'm occasionally repetitive. I'm sure it'll manifest itself even more in years to come. That unfortunate thing runs in my family.
As for my reference to the MobileMe "fiasco" -- it is the best way I could think to draw a comparison. I know it's a Mac thing and perhaps obscure here. I forgot my "audience." I won't refer to it anymore.
Basically, though, my post was a success in that it drew the attention of a tech--so I'm happy.
Now, surprise us with a new and definitive firmware we can load and forget that runs great--rather than releasing a bunch of betas--unless what you want--to hear back from us about problems.
-
I don't doubt I'm occasionally repetitive. I'm sure it'll manifest itself even more in years to come. That unfortunate thing runs in my family.
As for my reference to the MobileMe "fiasco" -- it is the best way I could think to draw a comparison. I know it's a Mac thing and perhaps obscure here. I forgot my "audience." I won't refer to it anymore.
Basically, though, my post was a success in that it drew the attention of a tech--so I'm happy.
Now, surprise us with a new and definitive firmware we can load and forget that runs great--rather than releasing a bunch of betas--unless what you want--to hear back from us about problems.
I had someone here tell me it wasn't a D-Link thing and look it up for me.
Now for that sinking problem where you realize the person whose ear you have, isn't worried about this product and can't effect it in any way. Best of luck.
-
Beta firmware is released to attempt to allow the community access to code so we can effect changes to the final release that the community requests.
The final release will come. be patient. it will be released when we're confident that it's successful.
People complain that the code we launch is buggy or has problems, so we spend more time testing it to make sure it runs, then people complain that it takes to long to produce. So the happy medium is releasing beta's that the community can use in the interim and provides us with useful feedback.
You are in no way obligated to use this beta, in fact if you're not comfortable with it, we HIGHLY suggest that you do not.
-
Has Wake on Lan been addressed in this beta?
-
The WOL issue is not a bug, it is a proper security measure. Forwarding unicast traffic to broadcast is bad juju, and there is no other way of ensuring the PC gets the magic packet without it being on and responding to ARP requests.
-
Dlink NTP Server works, time.nist.gov works. But the Day Light Savings time offset doesn't work. Well Eastern Standard Time will spring forward this weekend I think. So that may be the "insecticon" that's harassing me. And initially I always use 0.us.pool.ntp.org (didn't work, boot hiccups! ) as my NTP Server of choice, which forced me to post something in the first place ;D
-blaquesmith
-
Its absolutely ridiculous that a time request could cause reboots. I mean, yeah, ok, maybe that server is sending back unexected results, but seriously. Unless your code is made of tissue paper (which apparently it is) it should be able to handle the occasional exception.
I've got my 655 working (finally) as it mostly should now after several weeks of messing with it but all these things I read make me even MORE afraid to even look sideways at it.
-
I can reproduce the time server problem, you can however stop the reboots by disconnecting the wan cable, which will let you log back into the router and "fix" your mistake.
I *suspect* that the reboots are related to measurement of uplink speed (somehow), which cased me all kinds of hassle when I updated to the new 1.22 beta (reset to defaults before and after the upgrade).
And curiously, despite the fact that I have the checkbox NOT TO MEASURE uplink speed, it SEEMS to still do it upon every restart. Or at least I get a screen saying that uplink speed measurement is being measured and the page will refresh shortly--bloody irritating every ~20 seconds when I'm reconfiguring the router, a task I've gotten very very well practiced at ;).
As of so far, my impression of 1.22 is that its the same as the last 1.21 beta I was using, except 1.22 was a bigger pain about setup. And is still eating multicast mDNS traffic (in some fashion) preventing anything that uses mdns from finding each other.
Also, I don't know if its just me, but if I disable DNS relay (makes MDNS a little more reliable for some reason), and I've got the WAN port configured for a static address, and in the static WAN address I only give it one DNS server, the DIR-655 ends up handing off two static DNS server addresses to all its clients, the primary one I set for the WAN port, and 0.0.0.0. This has no affect on linux boxes (that I can find), but seems to confuse Apple Leopard machines, which try to use it as a valid DNS server... which it very much isn't.
I've got hardware version A4 by the way.
I'm also somewhat fuzzy on what uplink speed measurement is actually measuring, and/or if that's even useful to me. Especially since my DIR-655 is connected to another router as part of a larger local network segment (then the router I connect to is actually connected to the internet). This basically results in my WAN port being a LAN port.
-
The WOL issue is not a bug, it is a proper security measure. Forwarding unicast traffic to broadcast is bad juju, and there is no other way of ensuring the PC gets the magic packet without it being on and responding to ARP requests.
Pardon my lack of networking/router knowledge, but shouldn't I be able to use the port forwarding feature of the router to wake a specific PC? After all, there is an option for Wake on Lan in the Virtual Server page under Advanced Options.
-
Pardon my lack of networking/router knowledge, but shouldn't I be able to use the port forwarding feature of the router to wake a specific PC? After all, there is an option for Wake on Lan in the Virtual Server page under Advanced Options.
You may have me there on the existence of an Advanced Options page for WoL. Someone who has actually logged into this router in the past year will have to comment on that option, however it makes things hopeful for you.
Normally on our products you can not pass WoL through the router because incoming traffic has to be NAT'ed to a particular IP, if that IP is not currently in the devices ARP table, it will send out ARP requests for that IP. A machine that is off will not respond, so once your network no longer has a device to point out the MAC address of the forwarded IP the traffic can not be forwarded.
The "easy" solution is to forward that incoming port to a broadcast address so every PC on the network receives it (if you were on the LAN this is what you would do anyhow). Problem is forwarding incoming traffic to a broadcast address is a rather bad idea. Which is why when you mentioned WoL issue I had the gut reaction of it wasn't going to happen.
If there exists some sort of an option to allow you to forward traffic to the broadcast against our judgement, or that allows you to enter in a static MAC address for a host, then you should be functional and I take back what I said about WOL. That said, if it is the first option is how it should work I would ask they remove that feature if the decision was mine. Good thing it isn't.
-
I can't speak for the port forwarding configuration on the 655, but I was able to set up WOL with my old dlink 504 by using a different internal subnet mask. (such that, the broadcast address wasn't .255) .. because the dlink interface didnt support putting in .255 for forwarding. But it didnt understand that if its own subnet was .128 or whatever, I could still achieve the same thing.
And there's nothing really wrong with it in a home router setup. If you were in an enterprise environment, yes, ok, sure of course not. But with 2 computers ... no biggie.
Cory