Print

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

[wolv23]

Access control is limited to 24 IP's or Mac Addresses, is there any way to increase the number? I have over 30 computers on the network that need to have access to only a few domains, but I also have computers that need full access.  Is there any way someone can make a note to increase the number of reserved IP's or Mac's in the next firmware update? Also my current Firmware Ver is 1.11.
Thank You

[Rara Avis]

Pardon my insolence, as I am sure there must be factors beyond my knowledge, but why are you using consumer equipment to manage so many computers?

If I were to cheap out at work and run a computer lab (what this sounds like) off consumer equipment I would not be complaining that it is limited to a number of hosts far above it's role.  I would be glad that they hadn't fired me yet for putting that network at risk by implementing a half-baked solution.

Even if this isn't a business solution and we are just talking about an expansive personal property, then why not put in a real firewall to compliment your battery of computational power?  Even if you are using this device purely as an AP only (as I know there is only 1 Business class draft N AP out there [which should say something to the business and large network readiness of draft N]) why do access control on it, move the access control to a more central location (read: the firewall).

I know I am earning bad Karma all over the place with the number of feature requests I question, but this is a great example of a feature that is only even potentially useful if you are using the product wrong.  From a design standpoint I agree with you, however if you have a network which requires as much then you need to re-think the equipment you are using.

So my question is, what exactly are the facts I am missing that makes using this device for over 30 computers make cents?

[AWDL]

wolv23,
I think you might be better served with a different product to handle ACL. You may want to consider a managed switch with an ACL to handle those computers and your potential for expansion. I think the SMB router to have such a larger ACL will be closer to the design of the DIR-130/DIR-330 or may be something with SSL VPN support.


Rara Avis,
You are right about the bad karma points (I gave you 1 just now). I am surprised you don't more. Nice admins at D-Link.

[Rara Avis]

Only the best around here.  I secretly (or not so) believe they just agree with me despite the bad Karma potential half the time.  If I have to choose between nice and right I'll take right.

Additionally despite the bad karma you repeated what I said with a nicer bent.  A greater compliment than the insult of bad karma I dare say.

What would you all do without my charming puckish personality.  I dare say it might be boring around here without me!

[icerabbit]

Well, I have the same problem.

I don't think it would be too much trouble to expand the table to double the #. I doubt the few bits that this doubled list would require in memory could be a problem. My good old 802.11b router in 2000 (?) from Linksys supported 50 addresses. Why couldn't this one anno 2007-2008?

It is not a matter of using this device in an industrial / commercial environment and running 24+ machines simultaneously, but about supporting a small number of users, with desktops, notebooks that use 2 addresses ( desk and mobile use ) and a batch of mobile devices with a wifi chip as well as supporting legacy devices on occasion (some old macs & pcs that are fired up from time to time). 

Hardly anything that warrants a commercial solution and in my opinion something that this extreme router should be able to support.

[Sammydad1]

Hi,

I agree with Rabbit...it doesnt take much these days to come up with 24 IPs that might need some sort of configuration controls even in a "typical" home setting....Here I have 5 or 6 desktops 1 laptop 4 game systems on windows software bridges over wireless, an ipod touch, nintendo DS, Lan Printer,....  I am down to 5 or 6 spare slots on my MAC filter page....

It boils down to the fact that units such as the DIR-655 are being used by people to the fullest extent possible.....

SD1

[aljimenez]

Let me second my home with lots of devices. I have 3 ROKU music players, 3 Medigates, PDA, printer all WiFi connected, along with hardwired two laptops and one pc. The laptops have two mac addresses. That is eleven right there. When my fairly large family visits they all have laptops and pdas that brings the total around 20. So homes are growing in connected devices...  Al

[Lycan]

I concur, however the fact of the matter is the physical limitation of the device. The newer routers, (unfortunately/fortunately based on your current purchasing position) are going to probably have this MAC table cap raised.

 It's sad too because the 655 is truly one of D-links finer moments. Like the 604 in it's day. If MAC filtering is your thing, and you have that many devices, then this router just isn't for you. I'm sorry, but thats the long and the short of it.

However there are options, messy and time consuming, but they're there.
Radius, or other authentication type servers can be implemented to achieve the same end.

We are listening, and striving to make the product better. 

[icerabbit]

Thank you, Lycan

It would be helpful for us pro-sumers & small businesses (which DLINK does market their products to) if DLink were to reveal more details in the specs & manual. Right now they do not. The information is simply not there on the website and so you get people like me running into this unexpected brick wall.  Just checked, it is not even detailed in the manual. Only that MAC filtering is possible.

DLINK can pride itself the DIR-655 has been well reviewed, but "best in class" but I have to disagree on with regards to MAC filtering (that and mixed ngb mode issues). If a device supports up to 50-100-256 wireless clients (not sure what the number is for the DIR-655), I expect to be able to have some more granular filtering.  It would be helpful to be able to MAC filter only wireless devices, which are the ones we are mainly concerned about with.

And you know that if you can do with less hardware, that less is better. Setting up a dedicated access control server is nice and all but isn't energy friendly shouldn't be required to support half a dozen to a dozen people.

[Lycan]

It's a preformance router, and the first of it's kind as far as we're concerned. The focus was making it perform and offereing base features. I've yet to find any router out there, ANY that offers the same NAT cpu/speed and LAN speed that doesn't cost 300+ dollars.
We're aware of the units limitations, also please remember, it's almost a year old.

Just wait we got some newer ones that are going to rock just as hard and offer the features you're all looking for.