<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Linksys forum - dslreports.com community</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/linksys</link>
<description>Linksys forum current topics</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2007, dslreports.com</copyright>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:37:01 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:37:01 EDT</lastBuildDate>



<item>
<title>Undersized Power supplies from Linksys.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22654574</link>
<description><![CDATA[There has been an interesting discussion in the DD-WRT forums regarding the power supplies and the power ratings for various Linksys routers.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=54242

Bottom line is the spec sheets for the chip sets in the devices call for considerably more power than the Linksys power supplies provide - typical Linky PS is 1.0A

Many folks have been complaining about throughput issues on the switch, radio noise (clipping, distortion, drop outs) and random reboots.

There are some graphic examples how a simple 12V 5a power supply cures many of these ills.

Being one that needs to see it to believe it - I bought 2 12V 5A power supplies and tried them on my wrt310N's. Ths unit I bought

http://www.12vadapters.com/adapter/power-supply/12v/5-amp-5a.html

Has the correct plug and polarity already setup for the linksys.

My results are documented in the thread but suffice it to say I have never seen signal results (stregnth, SNR, noise) numebrs this good and the IPERF and DD-WRT bandwidth graphs are clean with none of the choppiness I have seen before.

Check the thread out - you will most likely end up ordering some new power supplies]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22654574</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-04 17:17:14</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Wireless] Multiple APs and Channel</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22653917</link>
<description><![CDATA[I have 3 WRT54G routers with Wi-Fi enabled in my house acting as wireless access points. All are connected back to my router by CAT5 cable.  All of the access points have the same SID with no encryption.  (I am very far from the street and my neighbors so encryption is not needed.)

My house is a bit too large  for just one AP to cover with excellent signal strength. I want to be able to move about the house and ** as seamlessly as possible ** connect to the nearest AP. 

Should the 3 access points be on the same channel or of different non-overlapping channels?  

Using "N" technology for greater range is not in the cards as the laptops we have only have B & G capabilities and I don't want to upgrade yet.

Tim
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22653917</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-04 13:47:35</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22610418</link>
<description><![CDATA[I would like to know all of yours opinions as to witch firmware has the best UPnP  and TCP management ability. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22610418</guid>
<pubDate>2009-06-25 16:44:38</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[WRT610N] BitTorrent Slows Connection</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22652662</link>
<description><![CDATA[My WRT610N works perfectly - except for the small issue of BitTorrent. I have a 1.5 Mbps / 896 Kbps pipe from my ISP, Qwest. That connection provides a throughput of about 160KB / 100KB. For some reason, with my WRT610N, downloading as little as 2KB (far from saturating my pipe) and uploading as little as 5KB will cause my pings to skyrocket as high as 3000ms (to a location that's normally 60ms). This occurs on the entire network, but my main machine is a Mac running OS X 10.5 and connected via a gigabit wired connection. This worked on my previous setup.

I have forwarded the incoming BitTorrent port I set in my client, and also tried setting up QoS on low priority for that port. (I would prefer BitTorrent to be low priority so Web browsing isn't unbearable.) Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

Edit: Thought I'd mention, this is on the latest firmware, 1.00.02 B10.

Edit 2: My neighbor hasn't secured his Wi-Fi so I hopped on and can download significantly faster and with reasonable pings. He's using a Linksys (as evidenced by his SSID) and 1.5 Mbps Qwest DSL as I am.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22652662</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-04 01:44:53</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Wireless] 2 linksys routers, one gets internet, another to boos</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22649801</link>
<description><![CDATA[Here's my issue....I've got a Linksys wireless pci adaptor with MIMO that I get the internet from my parents.  But the signal isn't strong enough to pickup thoughout the whole house.  I'm extremely confused as to what I need to go.  I've get the internet fine on my desktop, which is where the wireless pci adaptor is connected.  I've got my Linksys wrt54g connected to my desktop via ethernet cable.  Now how do I get my internet connection from the adaptor through the computer and out my wireless router to boost the signal in my apartment?  Thanks in advance!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22649801</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-03 13:23:30</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Wired] BEFSR41 V1 and V2 Slowness - Explanation</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22354399</link>
<description><![CDATA[I have read through many postings, including those which are several years old, which discuss slowness problems with the BEFSR41.  Generally they indicate that if the BEFSR41 is bypassed and the PC connected directly to the cable/DSL modem, the slowness goes away.  They also discuss slowness when multiple computers are trying to share the internet connection.

Well, I can confirm to you that the reason you will experience this with the BEFSR41 Version 1 (V1) and Version 2 (V2) units is that the WAN connection only operates at 10Mb/s, HALF-DUPLEX.  What half-duplex means is that the connection between the BEFSR41 and the cable/DSL modem can only transmit OR receive at one time.  It cannot simultaneously transmit AND receive at the same time.  To attempt this will result in a collision of the transmit and receive frames, and the frames will need to be retransmitted, resulting in delays.

Conversely, all modern computers are equipped with Network Interface Cards (NICs) which support both full-duplex and half- duplex modes, as well as speeds of 10 and 100 Mb/s, and most new NICs even support 1000 Mb/s.  By default, these NICs will automatically negotiate the highest common speed and duplex mode available between the NIC and connecting device (switch, router, modem).  Likewise, the DSL/cable modems also support 10/100Mb/s and full/half duplex, and will auto negotiate to the highest common speed and duplex mode.

In the human world, think of a road with a bridge that crosses a small creek.  The bridge is only one lane wide, and traffic comes from both directions to cross the bridge.  Only one vehicle, going in one direction, may cross the bridge at any one time, with the other vehicles (in both directions) waiting their turn.

THAT IS HALF-DUPLEX, and that is what is happening between your BEFSR41 and your DSL/cable modem!

By contrast, FULL-DUPLEX allows the transmit and receive frames to flow independently of each other, (think of a two-lane bridge analogy).  In this case, the limit will be the uplink and downlink speeds provided by your ISP, as well as the network latency between you and your source or destination host.

Getting back to the BEFSR41: as a result of this half- duplex mode, the best throughput that you can expect to achieve with the V1 and V2 units is about 5Mb/s, which is the value that many people have measured.  This will vary based on the amount of transmit and receive data that is simultaneously being transferred.  THERE IS NO WAY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BEFSR41 V1 OR V2.  Even the latest firmware upgrade will not change this characteristic.

With more and more home DSL and cable services offering speeds above 10Mb/s, there is no way to realize a speed improvement by using the BEFSR41 V1 or V2.  You will need to replace the unit.  And even for those broadband services that operate at speeds below 10Mb/s, you will still deal with the contention issue caused by the half-duplex connection between the BEFSR41 and the DSL/cable modem.

I suspect that the V1 and V2 versions of the BEFSR81 also suffer from the same problem, since it is essentially the same device, but has an additional four switch ports.

I can't speak for the V3, V4, and V5 versions of the BEFSR41, as I do not have them available for testing.  I have seen comments posted which state that these later versions do support 10/100Mb/s ethernet on the WAN link, but nobody has confirmed whether they operate in Half-Duplex or Full-Duplex mode.

I hope this helps!

-rb]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22354399</guid>
<pubDate>2009-05-07 14:19:32</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Tomato] Tomato 1.25</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22647196</link>
<description><![CDATA[Tomato 1.25 is availble for testing 
check out it out at linksysinfo.org]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22647196</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-02 20:33:09</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Configuring WRT54G for NAS</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22643247</link>
<description><![CDATA[I have a WRT54G with two PCs on my LAN. I want to purchase a NAS and attach it to the WRT54G.

I would like to allow access to the NAS from both PCs on my LAN, but block all access to the NAS from the WAN.

How would I configure my WRT54G to do that?

My apologies if this has been asked/answered .... I searched the forum and could not find the answer.

Thanks!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22643247</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-02 02:36:31</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Wireless] Wrt610n</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22645063</link>
<description><![CDATA[I am a moron how do I make the WRT610N pingable?  The FAQ's show older models...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22645063</guid>
<pubDate>2009-07-02 13:10:20</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>[Tomato] Problems with Tomato 1.25 on a WRT54GL</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22619209</link>
<description><![CDATA[Recently I got a WRT54GL router and decided to throw tomato on it. I went and grabbed the BIN, everything worked fine from the start. Then about 10 minutes into using it I get this in the log every thirty seconds:
Jun 26 22:47:19 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: using nameserver 68.94.157.1#53&#012;Jun 26 22:47:19 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: using nameserver 68.94.156.1#53&#012;Jun 26 22:47:19 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: read /etc/hosts - 0 addresses&#012;Jun 26 22:47:19 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: read /etc/hosts.dnsmasq - 1 addresses&#012;Jun 26 22:47:22 unknown daemon.notice miniupnpd&#91;2746&#93;: received signal 15, good-bye&#012;Jun 26 22:47:22 unknown daemon.notice miniupnpd&#91;2914&#93;: HTTP listening on port 5000&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: reading /etc/resolv.dnsmasq&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: using nameserver 68.94.157.1#53&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: using nameserver 68.94.156.1#53&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;2886&#93;: exiting on receipt of SIGTERM&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: started, version 2.47 cachesize 150&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: compile time options: no-IPv6 GNU-getopt no-RTC no-DBus no-I18N no-TFTP&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: DHCP, IP range 192.168.1.100 -- 192.168.1.149, lease time 1d&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: reading /etc/resolv.dnsmasq&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: using nameserver 68.94.157.1#53&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: using nameserver 68.94.156.1#53&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: read /etc/hosts - 0 addresses&#012;Jun 26 22:47:51 unknown daemon.info dnsmasq&#91;3057&#93;: read /etc/hosts.dnsmasq - 1 addresses&#012;Jun 26 22:47:54 unknown daemon.notice miniupnpd&#91;2914&#93;: received signal 15, good-bye&#012;Jun 26 22:47:54 unknown daemon.notice miniupnpd&#91;3085&#93;: HTTP listening on port 5000&#012;
Now I understand its restarting every 30 seconds about (The Connection Up time on the status page also says this), but why? Is this a known bug, or is it something I did? All I have done is forward some ports for my Magic Jack, nothing more. Would using an older version fix this, and where could I find it. I've been searching this for quite a bit, and have found no help. So, anyone know why this could be? I also know its the router because when I remove it and have 1 computer hooked right to the modem, everything is perfect. Please help!
]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22619209</guid>
<pubDate>2009-06-27 01:52:03</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
