.
The reason I am using IP address 192.168.1.1 is because the AT&T Speedstream modem uses IP Address 192.168.0.1 as a default. When AT&T does a line check they reset the Modem and the default IP address is restored. This causes a IP conflict with the DIR-655.
As you can see I have no choice.
I have tried it with Static IP address also. In the back of my mind I knew it would not work, I was grasping at straws hoping there was just a Hic-Up somewhere.
I have written several DHCP RADIUS authentication interfaces for Unix and Linux servers, as well as DHCP Service engines. So, I am very familiar with the TCP/IP environment. So even though Level 3 says it does not use a TCP/IP Port and that it just works, makes me cringe. It has to be listening for the router on some port.
What I am not familiar with is Microsoft. I am a dyed in the wool Unix guy. I have been for over 40 years. Remember, Microsoft is a lousy spin off from Unix. When DOS came out there were so many problems with it and it was too limited. When Bill Gates sold the user rights of DOS to IBM, he didn't even own DOS at the time. That was a turn off to me. When Bill bought it, DOS was actually called QDOS. “Quick and Dirty Operating System” NOT “Disc Operating System” I know I bought one of the fist IBM PCs out there. That was before I did work for SCO in their Xenix project. Now that was a Bonfire in my backyard!
When saying something just works. It is like saying Gasoline / Petrol makes a car go. Therefor I should be able to pour Gasoline in my refrigerator and drive it around towne! It just works! Even my ironing board should get me around towne if I put Gasoline in it. It just works! If the structure is not correct adding Gasoline just adds fuel to the fire. It just doesn't work! Everything goes up in flames. All the parts must be present and used correctly for the vehicle to operate. Engine, Transmission, Wheels, Steering, Brakes, . . . . .
Googling SharePort and the DIR-655 I have found hundreds of dissatisfied users trying to make this work. I believe it is in D-Links best interest to address this issue. When my software fails to communicate with a client or host, I am on it like ants at a picnic.
If I do not address problems with my software; One I will not be used by that client again; Two, no one will buy my product; Three, I will be unemployed.
What I do not like is D-Link using TeamView to take over a clients computer. I have seen too many companies destroy the integrity of a working computer. I am sure all of you have dealt with Customer Service and witnessed the level of competency of some techs. Would you want them reaching in your shorts? I think not.
What D-Link needs is a well written tool that can tell a tech or a user what the program is not seeing. ( i.e. SharePort is not seeing the DIR-655 on 192.168.1.1/12345 or SharePort is unable to use Port 12345. or DIR-655 is not listening . . . . . or Port 12345 is Firewalled. . . . . .) This tool should be on each and every disc.
When I write software, I have to include diagnostics with everything I write. Sometimes the diagnostics programs are way larger than the program itself.
I just wrote a BMS ( Battery Management System ) for the charging of Lithium-Ion batteries. Each battery has it's own PIC processor communicating on two serial lines to a host. More than half of the programs in the PIC24 are diagnostic software. ( Actually Subroutines. ) D-Link needs to do the same. I hate "Idi-ot Lights"!
The Unix Guy
I had to edit it. It kept taking out the word "I.D.I.O.T."
