Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lycan]

You bought duped hardware.

[foxium]

Lycan, I'm glad to see you replying to this topic. Are you suggesting that the guy with the DGL-4500 also bought duped hardware?

I'm sure you already know about the mac-address problem and it giving everyone the same one of
WAN:
MAC Address : 00:03:64:00:01:23
LAN:
MAC Address : 00:03:64:00:01:24

But I wanted to add something else it broke that you may not be aware of.

The PSP to PS3 remote play feature over the Internet.  The PS3 now turns on by itself when the "remote play over internet" is enabled.   It was fine with 1.02 and previous firmware with the same config.  With 1.10 even turning about every feature off it still happens.  It's due to traffic from the router/switch hitting the PS3 and the PS3 thinks it's remote play traffic when it's not.  This may be tied to the mac-address problem? 

Ref: http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=2005.msg9911#msg9911

He has clearly documented that AFTER flashing to a specific firmware his LAN/WAN MAC changing to the exact same pair I received. And I assume his unit got fixed later on by using a newer firmware D-link released to fix the "MAC address lost" issue.

In addition, does duped dir-655 hardware exist? My units flashed fined with official/beta firmwares of all versions.

[Lycan]

Duping can happen with units that have had their firmwares messed with. We did have an issue with the 1.10 code for the 4500 but that was corrected.

I suppose it's possible that there could be adjustments made to the MAC by the firmware, but if it was the code we would be hearing about it more. Also the source of the product is more then questionable.

Fact is I don't know for sure and my previous statement appeared to be an acertation. For that I apologize.

[foxium]

I suppose it's possible that there could be adjustments made to the MAC by the firmware, but if it was the code we would be hearing about it more.

Lycan, you seem to be trying to provide help on this and that is appreciated, but I cannot agree on what you said.

The DGL-4500 suffered from an officially confirmed bug effectively cloning everyone's LAN MAC to exactly what I've got, and yet there is only one person reporting it. Do a search using the LAN MAC address posted above and you'll see.

Anyway, some time ago I started contacting D-link e-mail support. After a few exchange of replies over an awfully long period of time, they are now suggesting me to send the routers back for RMA. D-link is trying to help, and I'll send it back. But now I've pretty much lost all my confidence in D-link's ability to program.

[EddieZ]

Lycan, you seem to be trying to provide help on this and that is appreciated, but I cannot agree on what you said.

The DGL-4500 suffered from an officially confirmed bug effectively cloning everyone's LAN MAC to exactly what I've got, and yet there is only one person reporting it. Do a search using the LAN MAC address posted above and you'll see.

Anyway, some time ago I started contacting D-link e-mail support. After a few exchange of replies over an awfully long period of time, they are now suggesting me to send the routers back for RMA. D-link is trying to help, and I'll send it back. But now I've pretty much lost all my confidence in D-link's ability to program.

So there's three people complaining with a DIR655. Quite a difference. 

Again there's the question if code in the firmware can generate an issue for only a few single devices, leaving the rest of the users group alone. None of those who claim that these issues are caused by firmware have been able to explain why this can happen. Not even the code freaks that did a code change to 'solve' the downgradeability feature. That should make you wonder.

[Cobra]

Anyway, some time ago I started contacting D-link e-mail support. After a few exchange of replies over an awfully long period of time, they are now suggesting me to send the routers back for RMA.

Since these were purchased through a third party I would assume D-Link wants to see these routers so they can test if the hardware side has been messed with or if it is in fact the firmware causing the issue.
This will most likely determine whether or not they issue a replacement unit.

[lotacus]

duped. I don't. duped.

oh did i mention...


duped.


if you purchase an xbox 360 from 3rd party you gonna complain to microsoft that you can't do anything with it? Must be a bug that you can't sign in to xbox live.


sorry.


duped.

[EddieZ]

duped. I don't. duped.

oh did i mention...


duped.


if you purchase an xbox 360 from 3rd party you gonna complain to microsoft that you can't do anything with it? Must be a bug that you can't sign in to xbox live.


sorry.


duped.

Imagine you buy a car from an individual. Let's make it a BMW. And when you check the engine you find out that underneath the bonnet there's a LADA engine! You complain at the manufacturer. What would you think the manufacturer would say?

[EddieZ]

Why are you guys making statements without actually seeing the hardware? There is no way you guys now for a fact that it is duped. Man I think some here need to eat a little humble pie after spouting for months d-links lies about being able to downgrade. Then when it's uncovered that it's a blatant bold face lie, EddieZ says there's more important things in life to worry about. Why don't you answer the question head on? Answer the question why do you believe d-links lies without any proof?

Because there's some nuance in "the blatant lie". Even Dlink staff was not informed (or were just lied to) about the locked downgrade. Trust me, Lycan personally checked this "no downgrade issue" for me internally with Dlink Product Management a couple of months ago. You're right, this could be a lie too. But this MAC stuff deals with a very different level of firmware internals. Such an issue would technically speaking arise with the majority of users, and not with two or three 655 owners who, coincidently, all bought the device on a fleamarket or from the booth of a car...

[Lycan]

Fact: There was a problem with the DGL-4500 firmware. It changed the WAN MAC to all Zeros.

Fact: Changing the WAN MAC is easy. It's not hardcoded in to the switch like the LAN MAC.
In fact similar to our DFL line the WAN mac is actually just a VLAN with a cloned MAC address and routing rules between the two vlans.

Fact: If this was a serious problem like the 4500 code we'd be seeing A LOT more of it. 3-4 users so far isn't exactly an epidemic. If your units are broken, PM me the info to them and I'll personally see that they get replaced for THIS issue. This is not an open invite to PM me about anything thats possibly wrong with your router.

While there may have been something that happened to the MAC address during the firmware upgrade, I find it ODD that the people that have suffered from this all own multiple units. Not that it should make a difference, however still strange.

[sideload3d]

So what was the reason for saying that downgrades were impossible?

[Lycan]

Because without hacking the firmware or loading non NA code it was impossible.

You can try to make a conspiracy out of it as much as you want. It doesn't change the fact that your just wasting your time. We locked the code for whatever reason we locked it. If it were me, I would have NOT locked it in the first place but they did.

Stop trying to stir things up it's not helping anyone and you're not getting anywhere.
FACT is there is final release code with excellent results. If you wanna use OLD code then use it. It doesn't bother me.

[EddieZ]

So what was the reason for saying that downgrades were impossible?

Because Dlink forum staff were informed this way. Simple as that. Or do you think it's quite common for every Microsoft employee to decompile Windows source code to check the product's limitations? 

[sideloader]

I don't know you're also wasting your time banning me for no reason. Oh btw putting OLD in caps really scared me from using it. Maybe OLD code is better.