D-Link Forums
D-Link VPN Router => DSR-500N => Topic started by: fperez on June 25, 2013, 03:01:35 AM
-
Hi,
I have a DSR-500N, Firmware 1.0653b with the following scenario:
WAN1 (192.168.1.2) <--> DSL Router (192.168.1.1)
The idea is to have 2 different Wireless connections: one for internal use and the other for clients (the device is situated in a coffee shop). So we have 2 different BSSIDS:
- Internal
- Clients
Both use WPA2 keys. In order tyo separate the communications between both networks, we have configured 2 VLANs in this way:
- BSSID Internal AND LAN connections: VLAN ID 1, IP range 192.168.10.1/24
- BSSID Clients : VLAN ID 2, Ip range 192.168.20.1/24
To this step, everything works OK. Both VLAN are independent and the clients have Internet access. Also, the "Clients" BSSID has the WLAN Partition checked to prevent conectivity between clients.
Next, we want to do a bandwidth control, and here is the problem. We need to limit the bandwidth on the clients to prevent the abuse and to guarantee that the internal network has a good connection.
We have created a BW Profile (Advanced -> Advanced Network -> Traffic Management -> Bandwidth Profiles) with minimum BW=1 AND maximum=500 (Kbps).
Then, in Traffic Selectors (Advanced -> Advanced Network -> Traffic Management -> Traffic Selectors) have 2 selectors, one for the HTTP protocol and other for HTTPS (BTW: Is there an option to create a selector for ALL the traffic?).
The selectors are attached to the BSSID "Clients". Also, we have tried to change it to the VLAN ID 2. None of those configurations is limiting the bandwidth.
I have read this doccument: ftp://ftp.dlink.co.uk/dsr/dsr-500n/FAQ/Bandwidth_Management_setup_in_DSR-series.pdf (ftp://ftp.dlink.co.uk/dsr/dsr-500n/FAQ/Bandwidth_Management_setup_in_DSR-series.pdf) but I think it is outdated (the options on the actual firmware are different).
I need some help.
Regards.
-
Link>Welcome! (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=41537.0)
- What region are you located?
-
Hi,
Europe, Spain.
-
There is v1.08B51_WW for this unit.
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads2008.asp (http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads2008.asp)
Could try it to see if it fixes this, if not, I recommend that you phone contact D-Link support about it to have them check your configuration.
http://www.dlink.com/es/es/business-solutions/security/services-routers/dsr-500n-wireless-n-unified-services-router (http://www.dlink.com/es/es/business-solutions/security/services-routers/dsr-500n-wireless-n-unified-services-router)
-
Hi,
I updated to 1.08B33 wich I downloaded from here: ftp://ftp.dlink.es/DSR/DSR-0500N/Firmware/ (ftp://ftp.dlink.es/DSR/DSR-0500N/Firmware/) but it still doesn't work.
I'll give a try to the 1.08B51.
Regards.
-
IF that fails, I recommend that you phone contact your regional D-Link support office and inquire about this.
Keep us posted.
-
Hi,
I can't download the 1.08B51 firmware. In the link you posted, I find the firmware, but the downloaded file is smaller (weights 25MB aprox) than the size specified in the page (32MB). If I try to use this downloaded file, the router says that it is corrupt or invalid.
I've tried to download it several times and from different computers/browsers (even using wget from a linux box) but the downloaded file is always the same, so I assume it is corrupt.
Is there an alternative mirror to download this file?
Thanks.
-
Confirmed, I just downloaded both 500N and 1000N and both are the same size, 25.3Mb. I presume there is either a corruption in the file or was not compiled correctly. I recommend that you phone contact D-Link Spain and advise them of this issue regarding this file listed on that site and ask them about your problem in configuring the DSR for the features you need.
Let us know how it goes.
-
Hello all,
I just want to mention that I have the same problem about upgrading the firmware on DSR-500N, error message is that the file is invalid/corrupted.
Are there any news about this? Do anyone have managed to successfully upgraded the firmware to 1.08?
I also have similiar problems with the traffic management on DSR-500N, its not quite the same as threadstarter, but whenever I enable it, with or without any traffic selectors or bandwidth profiles(have tried both), it slows down everything, after a couple of minutes my router becomes unresponsive on the Web interface, and the bandwidth on WAN is around 10Mbps instead of my usual 50Mbps, I could take all computers off and just connect one to a LAN port and then the internet in the WAN port, and it does the same.. With or without bandwidth profiles/traffic selectors, it dosent make any difference, it seems like a bug.. Are there anyone else there have had the same problem?
-
Link>Welcome! (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=41537.0)
- What Hardware version is your router? Look at sticker under router.
- Link>What Firmware (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=47512.0) version is currently loaded? Found on routers web page under status.
- What region are you located?
Try from this site?
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads2008.asp (http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads2008.asp)
Hello all,
I just want to mention that I have the same problem about upgrading the firmware on DSR-500N, error message is that the file is invalid/corrupted.
Are there any news about this? Do anyone have managed to successfully upgraded the firmware to 1.08?
I also have similiar problems with the traffic management on DSR-500N, its not quite the same as threadstarter, but whenever I enable it, with or without any traffic selectors or bandwidth profiles(have tried both), it slows down everything, after a couple of minutes my router becomes unresponsive on the Web interface, and the bandwidth on WAN is around 10Mbps instead of my usual 50Mbps, I could take all computers off and just connect one to a LAN port and then the internet in the WAN port, and it does the same.. With or without bandwidth profiles/traffic selectors, it dosent make any difference, it seems like a bug.. Are there anyone else there have had the same problem?
[/list]
-
Any status on this? ???
Hello all,
I just want to mention that I have the same problem about upgrading the firmware on DSR-500N, error message is that the file is invalid/corrupted.
Are there any news about this? Do anyone have managed to successfully upgraded the firmware to 1.08?
I also have similiar problems with the traffic management on DSR-500N, its not quite the same as threadstarter, but whenever I enable it, with or without any traffic selectors or bandwidth profiles(have tried both), it slows down everything, after a couple of minutes my router becomes unresponsive on the Web interface, and the bandwidth on WAN is around 10Mbps instead of my usual 50Mbps, I could take all computers off and just connect one to a LAN port and then the internet in the WAN port, and it does the same.. With or without bandwidth profiles/traffic selectors, it dosent make any difference, it seems like a bug.. Are there anyone else there have had the same problem?
-
Hi everyone,
I've been able to download the 1.08B51WW from this site:
http://mydsr.dlink.com.tw (http://mydsr.dlink.com.tw)
I've tested it on an unit and the file is correct (not corrupt). I'll keep you informed when I test this version on my client's unit.
Regards.
-
Thanks for the update. Keep us posted.
Good Luck. ;)
-
Hi,
I'm doing some testing. With the new firmware the device performance seems to be better. The boot time has drecreased dramatically and the system seems to be more stable.
Other thing I noted is, in older firmwares, the device logs populated with "dbRecordValueGet failed" messages. Now the log is clean.
It looks good. I'll keep posting.
Cheers.
-
Hello everyone,
after some testing of FW 1.08B51 with this problem, I am still unable to control the bandwidth of my clients. The firmware seems to work better, but this feature doesn't work.
When I enable/disable "Bandwidth profiles" on the unit, I got this error in the log:
Fri Oct 11 16:27:13 2013(GMT+0100) [DSR-500N][Kernel][KERNEL] HTB: quantum of class 10002 is small. Consider r2q change.
Fri Oct 11 16:27:13 2013(GMT+0100) [DSR-500N][Kernel][KERNEL] HTB: quantum of class 10001 is big. Consider r2q change.
Fri Oct 11 16:27:13 2013(GMT+0100) [DSR-500N][Kernel][KERNEL] HTB: quantum of class 10001 is big. Consider r2q change.
Fri Oct 11 16:27:13 2013(GMT+0100) [DSR-500N][Kernel][KERNEL] HTB: quantum of class 10001 is big. Consider r2q change.
It seems to be related with the bandwidth control. I have contacted D-Link's Local service with all this info, but I'm still waiting for an answer/solution.
Regards.
-
Hello,
I've just received an answer from my local D-Link service about this case:
"The bandwidth management feature only applies to upload data"
Of course, this cannot be true because in this paper (ftp://ftp.dlink.co.uk/dsr/dsr-500n/FAQ/Bandwidth_Management_setup_in_DSR-series.pdf (http://ftp://ftp.dlink.co.uk/dsr/dsr-500n/FAQ/Bandwidth_Management_setup_in_DSR-series.pdf)) the example is with a server download (example I already send'em).
Very disapointed with D-Link. Looking for alternatives. >:( >:( >:(
-
You might call support back and ask for a level 2 or 3 person and talk to them about that PDF and see if they can confirm weather or not that document is accurate....
-
FurryNutz,
that's what I did, twice, and the answer is the same: "the bandwidth limitation of this unit is only applied to upload streaming".
Maybe this was a feature that is not available now? It is true that the bandwidth configuration screen is different from the one in the configuration document, but I think that this feature, that is available in simpler and cheaper devices, is a must for any device of this kind.
Regards.
-
I'm wondering if maybe the documentation was a template for other DSR models and this feature wasn't actually meant for this model as stated by the document. Could be for the 1000N. Not sure.
I guess I would ask them what model that feature is fully supported. Other than this, we can't do anything else. Sorry. :-\
-
Hi,
thank you for your help, I really appreciate it. I also have some DSR-1000 units installed for some clients. DSR-500 and DSR-1000 are similar, I suppose the difference is in the internal hardware, but the user interface and options are the same.
Regards.
-
Ok then. Thanks for sharing.
Good Luck. ;)