Print

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

[jgabet]

I think it would fit well with this product if it was able to do something like SharePort.  I think it compliments the DIR-330's audience well.  A router that can easily do VPN and USB drives for easy addition of NAS would be nice.
To be honest I really want that feature right now and I am sad I gave up my DIR-655 to a friend.  I don't know if the chipset in the 330 has the power required to do this feature, but I am just suggesting it.

[Fatman]

I thank you for the suggestion, it will be passed on to the relevant parties, I welcome all the feedback I can get.

You can safely ignore the below rant.  It is my personal opinion and not that of D-Link and will not effect your request in any way.

I do not understand the draw for SharePort personally.

It is a proprietary and closed implementation of a function that is of dubious utility at best.

All of the things that I have heard people using SharePort for (that are not ridiculous like attaching mice and keyboard), have been implementations that would have been better served by just sharing that resource from one PC, or if you do not want that PC to be on get a network attached device to handle it.

I understand the desire to make a router an all in one box, but the functionality desired is ofter much better served by a standalone box.

The two big uses  I hear about for SharePort are mass storage devices and printers.  A NAS server device would allow concurrent usage, as well as potentially eliminate the USB bottleneck, there is no contest there in my mind.  A print server would not only be concurrent it would eliminate driver issues and incompatibilities.  Please don't take this as a advert for more D-Link equipment, my first choice is to set up a file and print server that runs completely separate on my network.

Even if we found a utility for networked USB that made perfect sense I do not think that a proprietary and closed protocol will serve anyone's needs perfectly.

It is also worth noting that  USB is specifically designed as a “one host to many devices” protocol, any time you want to make that a networked application we are going to run into issues.

And to summarize this is my personal opinion and not that of D-Link and will not effect your request in any way.

[jgabet]

I agree and disagree with you on this one.  It would be a useful feature to me.  However, I understand that it isn't a perfect solution.  Here is my current setup in my apartment.
Cable modem
DIR-330 VPN Router (I do not use the VPN a ton anymore, but it was used to connect to my network and throw out a WOL packet, so I could connect to my PC when it decided to shut down/sleep for some odd reason.  Also, I could connect to network shares and download from them.)
1-Port Powerline Ethernet adapter (can't remember whose, but honestly I don't think it is Dlink)
4-Port Powerline Ethernet adapter (can't remember whose, but honestly I don't think it is Dlink)
TivoHD (wired to Powerline adapter)
HTPC (wired to Powerline adapter, old crappy and just good enough for Netflix Instant although the Tivo does that now)
Blu-ray player (wired to Powerline adapter)
VoIP ATA (SIP, wired to router)
Notebook (connected via wireless)
Notebook dock (wired to router)

Now what I want to do is temporarily (key) serve 500GB on my network.  The laptop gets turned off and moves and the HTPC is in a completely full entertainment center.  So I am stuck without anyway to put the storage on the network unless I buy a new harddrive (with ethernet) or a usb-ethernet adapter (I saw one somewhere).  In general I am sick of the fact that I can't find good quality devices to combine in the first place.  In reality some combination of the following could be combined into one device: cable modem, router, powerline adapter, and VoIP ATA.  But since no reputable company seems to be able to combine any of that, I am stuck with 4 boxes.  Now to add another one just to put some storage on the network becomes annoying.  In another post I stated that SharePort might be a good feature for the DPR-1260, which is a wireless printserver.  It is arguable which it fits better with.  Now why do I think it is a good fit with the VPN Router?  Think if you are already able to remotely access the network, why not be able to easily access network storage.  I agree that a better solution might be a dedicated box for serving the data, but for an occasional use type application it would be nice not to have yet another piece of hardware.  Also, from my side it looks like it is only a software change and you already have most of it written for another router, so the cost to add the feature hopefully is relatively low (but of course I am not aware of how distinct the software on the different routers are in the first place).

[Fatman]

I think we are working from fundamentally different starting points.  Which makes our appreciation for different network technologies completely different.

I would sooner live without network connectivity than use Powerline adapters.  As a very best case scenario you are taking your network back to hub level technology.

I prefer having multiple boxes for specific functions.  There is an argument against putting all your eggs in one basket.  Especially when we discuss the fact that the hardware holding all your eggs is a low power device that was originally designed for one utility and no customizability.  If the basket was a well built server, I would have less of an issue (in fact no issue in a home environment).  But the devices you are using are purpose built devices that even if they were stretched to all the desired functions would not operate nearly as well as multiple independent devices.

There is nothing wrong with our respective opinions, we just approach networking from different angles.  I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[jgabet]

I'm not sure what you see is wrong with "hub level technology."  Yes the switch has changed things a lot, but there still has to be cases where there is a shared channel medium.  In reality, if done right, Powerline ethernet can be much better than wireless (which would also count as "hub level technology").  There is much more control over a powerline network than wireless as well.  In my case there are so many APs around in my apartment building that signals are horrible, plus the fact that there are very few bridges on the market that have a built in switch for multiple devices (like I would need).  In general most wireless tech is not very good and unreliable even in less noisy situations.  A lot less money has gone into developing for powerline networks, which is unfortunate.  For many things they are a much better alternative and don't take an extra cable.  With all the devices that are now networked (Blu-ray players, cable boxes, etc.), wouldn't it be nice to be able to just plug in the power cord and be connected to the network as well.  Instead I have several ethernet cables hanging out of the back of my entertainment center.  I guess I went on and on here, but both powerline and wireless ethernet have generally the same pitfalls to design for.  However, if done right the powerline can be much superior for data rates and noise issues.  Now that said, is the current implementation of powerline equipment up to snuff?  At least you don't think so...  Personally, if i had a choice, I'd run a CAT5/6 cable and be done with it.  It would probably be cheaper to do than the alternatives as well.

Edit:
After I wrote this, I felt it sounded like I was upset.  I am not, but I am just speaking from my own experiences and knowledge.

Edit2:
I forgot to actually talk about what I meant to... Whoops.  I agree with you that it is better to use separate devices that are specific to their tasks and do a good job.  However, at some point that becomes silly as many redundant things have to happen.  With the right hardware, there doesn't need to be any trade off of quality and functionality.  That is why in my first post I mentioned about the processing power of the device and its ability to actually handle the work load.  In reality the thing that needs to really be integrated is the cable modem and the router.  There are very few people these days that set up broadband service without a router.  It just makes things simpler and reduces out two cluttering cords.  If Dlink decided to make an integrated cable modem with a nice router (DIR-655) for $150, I would buy it tomorrow (assuming that I can update the firmware myself - a pitfall of some other combined devices).  Now back to the powerline stuff, since I think it would be nice to start integrating all kinds of devices with it the router could be another possibility. 

[Fatman]

No worries, I know you were level headed throughout.  Now for the real shocker.  I absolutely agree with you.

I wouldn't use wireless if I could avoid it either, it's medium is just slightly more accessible than powerline with the current consumer drive however.

I sometimes selfishly wish I could force everybody to run Cat 5/5e/6 or optical fibre.

[gbaughma]

As long as we're talking about USB Feature requests....

(I might get shot for saying this, or the thread deleted) but DD-WRT supports it as a file system, at least.

I'd like to see the USB be "Universal".  Connect a printer (Print server).  Connect a USB Hard Drive (as a network share / NAS / etc.) but most importantly:

Being able to put a USB Flash drive in, and say having a "flash" or "bin" folder that would update the firmware with the .bin file that is in that directory.  Now *THAT* would be nice.

[Fatman]

You won't get shot (**** Cheney doesn't troll these fora I don't believe).

I use DD-WRT, and highly suggest it over our commercial implementation.  There is some tweaking to be done there too though.  That said if you use 3rd party firmware we won't be able to support you if you brick your router.