Print

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

[lwb250]

I have repurposed my DNS-345 to an installation where I no longer have a need for link aggregation, in fact, I want to configure the NICs separately to access different subnets.

I have been through the management software numerous times as well as the manual and help files, but nowhere does it describe how to disable link aggregation.

I would prefer not to have to reset to factory defaults, and I can't imagine that a feature such as this had software so poorly designed that it didn't allow for disabling it.

So does anyone know if link aggregation can be disabled in the management software?

Thanks,

LWB250

[JavaLawyer]

I believe the factory default setting is Active Backup, as this is the value on my DNS-345 and I did not alter the settings since configuring my unit for the first time.

(Active Backup - uses only one active slave to transmit packets.)

I have repurposed my DNS-345 to an installation where I no longer have a need for link aggregation, in fact, I want to configure the NICs separately to access different subnets.

I have been through the management software numerous times as well as the manual and help files, but nowhere does it describe how to disable link aggregation.

I would prefer not to have to reset to factory defaults, and I can't imagine that a feature such as this had software so poorly designed that it didn't allow for disabling it.

So does anyone know if link aggregation can be disabled in the management software?

Thanks,

LWB250

[lwb250]

I believe the factory default setting is Active Backup, as this is the value on my DNS-345 and I did not alter the settings since configuring my unit for the first time.

(Active Backup - uses only one active slave to transmit packets.)

So are you suggesting that if I change the link aggregation mode to Active Backup it should allow me to see both NICs in the setup menu again?

I will give this a try later today and report back.

[JavaLawyer]

I'm not suggesting that placing the DNS-345 in Active Backup mode can be used to connect the DNS-345 to two independent subnets, but am rather stating that link aggregation is enabled in the "Active Backup" mode by default.  This being the case, resetting the DNS-345 to the default settings (as you suggested earlier) would not disable link aggregation

I believe that "Active Backup" only enables one NIC at any given time, with the second NIC serving as a fail over if the switch attached to the first NIC fails.  Any flavor of link aggregation will only serve to provide fault tolerance, increased throughput, and redundancy.

More to your point, I don't know of any way to disable Ethernet bonding on the DNS-345.

[lwb250]

I'm not suggesting that placing the DNS-345 in Active Backup mode can be used to connect the DNS-345 to two independent subnets, but am rather stating that link aggregation is enabled in the "Active Backup" mode by default.  This being the case, resetting the DNS-345 to the default settings (as you suggested earlier) would not disable link aggregation

I believe that "Active Backup" only enables one NIC at any given time, with the second NIC serving as a fail over if the switch attached to the first NIC fails.  Any flavor of link aggregation will only serve to provide fault tolerance, increased throughput, and redundancy.

More to your point, I don't know of any way to disable Ethernet bonding on the DNS-345.

Then if I understand your response, Ethernet bonding cannot be disabled once it is enabled?

I can't imagine such a feature would be set up that way. There has to be a way to return the NICs to the original "separate" functionality. If not, it is a significant flaw in the product.

LWB250

[JavaLawyer]

I see if I can get some clarification on enabling/disabling Ethernet Bonding.   
Have you tried connecting to multiple subnets concurrently?

[lwb250]

Yes I have, and it seems to work.  However, I don't trust the arrangement using an aggregated link - I want the NICs to be separate from each other as they will be on different subnets.

LWB250

[JavaLawyer]

If I'm reading your response properly, it seems that you are able to instantiate a connection to two different networks concurrently (suing NIC1 and NIC2), but you don't trust that link aggregation is actually disabled because there is no explicit switch in which Ethernet Bonding was disabled?

[lwb250]

The issue of having two networks connect concurrently is not relevant.  I want to disable link aggregation and return the NICs to individual operation.

I cannot configure the NICs independently if they are aggregated, making them questionable at best. I want static IPs on both for different subsets. Without the ability to configure them separately I can't do this.

That is what I want to address.

LWB250

[lwb250]

I see if I can get some clarification on enabling/disabling Ethernet Bonding.   
Have you tried connecting to multiple subnets concurrently?

Any word from the support folks on this?

Thanks,

LWB250

[lwb250]

I am going to assume that the lack of response here regarding the link aggregation issue means that like a fool I have once again purchased a DLink product that is poorly engineered with little or no thought to the design or operation (much like my DIR-655 router, which still shows as an active product, but yet has outdated firmware that only allows the calendar to go through the year 2012!)

I'll head over to Amazon where I bought it to post my review, along with one at NewEgg as well. After that I'll start looking for a Synology NAS, like I should have to begin with, and put this doorstop on eBay for some poor unsuspecting sucker to get saddled with it.

Shame on you, DLink.

[JavaLawyer]

The DNS-345 has a myriad of functionality. I appreciate your concerns, but the price-to-feature/performance ratio for this device is very good considering the cost of competing products.  I can say with certainty that new firmware is under development, but unfortunately I don't have an ETA nor a list of changes. 

[FurryNutz]

I am going to assume that the lack of response here regarding the link aggregation issue means that like a fool I have once again purchased a DLink product that is poorly engineered with little or no thought to the design or operation (much like my DIR-655 router, which still shows as an active product, but yet has outdated firmware that only allows the calendar to go through the year 2012!)
The DIR-655 does not have this problem and has updated current FW. Are you sure you are referring to the correct model router?

[lwb250]

Typo.  DIR-665.

Still considered an active product - in fact, DLink is still selling them!

http://www.dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/connect/routers/dir-665-xtreme-n-450-dual-band-gigabit-router

FW is still v1.0 from original production.  No updates since the product was introduced.  Someone explain to me how I can read the logs on mine since January 1, 2013?

I rest my case.

[FurryNutz]

Just curious if you have been in touch with D-Link on the phone yet as suggested earlier?

I have forwarded this on to D-Link however I can't guarantee anything. For immediate information and response, I would recommend that you phone contact them and ask about it. I would even ask them if there isn't anything they can do, ask to see if they would be willing to trade out the 665 for something that is being supported and has been updated with FW. We haven't seen many users of the 665 in the forums and presumed that this model was a limited production model thus limited FW updates. I agree, there should be some support on this if it's being supported at live. Only way to find out is to ask. Ask for level 2 or higher support.

Other than this, this is beyond forum support help and needs Phone support attention.

Good Luck.