D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: CaseyJanke on February 09, 2017, 04:45:35 PM
-
I realize there are other posts on this, but one ended with the person buying a new router. Does anyone have any new insights? This is crazy that I just can't add a port forward without an error.
I was going to insert the images but when I click the insert image icon all i get is . Have no idea what I'm suppose to do with that.
Basically I am trying to add a port forward and when I hit save I get "412 - Request Entity Too Large". Tried it using Chrome Edge, IE, Firefox and remotely using Opera. All yield the same. I'm not onsite now and I'm afraid if I set it to factory defaults I won't be able to access it again as the computers may not pick up the new ip address (since I'm using 192.168.1.1 sub net and it uses 192.168.0.1 by default) and I don't think there is a way to factory reset it and keep remote management enabled.
Without the port forward, the router is useless to me. So I solved one problem by moving to this router and created a new problem.
Hardware version is C2, Firmware Version is 3.02 dated I think November 21, 2014. Did I do a factory reset after the firmware update, probably not, most routers don't need that. Anyways, if anyone has found a resolution that would be nice.
-
What are you entering?
-
Thanks for asking. Since I can't add images here, or don't know how. I put it on a web page http://mytechco.com/dir-655/
I am trying to port forward port 81 (image 1) and when I hit save I get image 2. When I click continue I go back to the router login page.
-
Adding Screenshots In A Post (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=58120.0)
This is the FW update process:
Link> >FW Update Process (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=42457.0)
- Was the router working before any firmware updates?
Can you try a PC with Windows 7? I saw this once on a PC with windows 7 and the 655 that I set up at a shop I help with. However I wasn't using any PF rules. I noticed that using IE11 on Windows 7 was giving this same issue until I changed to Chrome. However updates to Chrome may have changed behaviors since then.
-
I just remoted into a computer on that network that has Windows 7 installed. Tried making the change with IE and Chrome, same problem.
As for if the router was working 'before'. The answer is yes it was working, but didn't try to add a port forward. Like many, When I get a router I plug it in and make sure it works. Before I take it to a client I always upgrade the firmware. Did I factory reset it after (or before) a firmware upgrade? No. I would hope one shouldn't have to do that. I realize there is a back up utility and such, but some configurations take a lot of time to do. If you have to factory reset a router after a or before a firmware update and start from scratch, that kind of sucks! It shouldn't do that.
However I guess my only choice at this point is to go onsite and try that. Would like to do it remotely but as I mentioned, I'm afraid if I factory reset it, the computers won't get the new ip and check in and I will lose all connection remotely.
-
If you search this error, there does seem to be issues like this (same message) in other areas of IT. It seems to me to point to a bug in the web server configuration portion of the router.
My intuition tells me that they could have implemented the port forwarding page better. The put 24 port forwarding rules on that page. Even if you enter 1 rule it is probably trying to upload the data for the whole table. If they would have just put one, then buttons to "Add Another". then maybe this problem wouldn't be happening as it wouldn't be trying to upload the whole table when many are just blank.
-
I would get on site first before doing the factory reset.
The reason for doing a factory reset after a FW update is to ensure any and all configurations are fully cleared out and set up the router cleanly.
Yes the use of saved configuration files can be used, however I've seen it were there are differences between the newer FW and older saved configuration files causing problems. So even thought sometimes it defeats the purpose of saved config files, we've found that after doing the FW update and setting up the router again, saving a new config file soon after, helps avoid some issues. I've been using this method for years and has worked well each time I use it, so why I recommend to everyone here in the forums. Ensures a good installation of the FW.
This could be a issue in the FW. I'll forward this on to D-Link for review. I don't know if anything can be done since this model router is getting out of date and D-Link may not be developing on it anymore.
This product has been discontinued.
Free support for this product will end on 06/01/2018
I can check my Rev C as well. I know Rev B doesn't see this issue nor did Rev A. I'll try mine this weekend.
-
Please post captures of your PF rule configuration. I'll attempt to use this and reproduce on mine.
-
Are you sure you are on 192.168.1. ? Doesn't dlink use 192.168.0. ? (I couldn't tell from pictures you posted). But I'm sure you understand all that so probably no luck with that.
So this camera is setup on port 81? and not 80 locally?
-
He maybe using .1.# due the ISP modem maybe using .0.1.
Are you sure you are on 192.168.1. ? Doesn't dlink use 192.168.0. ? (I couldn't tell from pictures you posted). But I'm sure you understand all that so probably no luck with that.
So this camera is setup on port 81? and not 80 locally?
-
What is the Mfr and model if the ISP modem the DIR-655 is connecting too?
I realize there are other posts on this, but one ended with the person buying a new router. Does anyone have any new insights? This is crazy that I just can't add a port forward without an error.
I was going to insert the images but when I click the insert image icon all i get is . Have no idea what I'm suppose to do with that.
Basically I am trying to add a port forward and when I hit save I get "412 - Request Entity Too Large". Tried it using Chrome Edge, IE, Firefox and remotely using Opera. All yield the same. I'm not onsite now and I'm afraid if I set it to factory defaults I won't be able to access it again as the computers may not pick up the new ip address (since I'm using 192.168.1.1 sub net and it uses 192.168.0.1 by default) and I don't think there is a way to factory reset it and keep remote management enabled.
Without the port forward, the router is useless to me. So I solved one problem by moving to this router and created a new problem.
Hardware version is C2, Firmware Version is 3.02 dated I think November 21, 2014. Did I do a factory reset after the firmware update, probably not, most routers don't need that. Anyways, if anyone has found a resolution that would be nice.
-
I am using the 192.168.1 sub net because that is how the network was setup with the old router and changing that would require me to manually change the ip address of the 24 ip cameras at the site. In addition to the servers and printers, etc..
I get the FW process but it just makes it messy. What if I have 30 client sites and want to upgrade the firmware on all the routers? If I didn't have to do a factory reset I could remote in to a computer on the network and do it remotely. Having to do a factory reset means I now have to visit all 30 sites. Or even worse, what if I configured and sent one of these to my sister 2000 miles away, now I can't really upgrade the firmware remotely without bringing her into the picture to help.
The router is connecting to a Motorola SB6141 modem. Ironically, 2 days ago I took a DSR-500N onsite that I got configured at my office and was working fine, but when I took it onsite it would never get on the internet there. I had a Cisco RV series router there that was fine, except it doesn't play nice with VOIP. So I tried the DSR-500 and couldn't connect it to the internet. Now I try a DIR-655 and it connects to the internet and their network was back up in 5 minutes. Owner wanted to go home so I figured I would finish the port forwarding stuff from home. Only to find out I can't. Arggg. I just want a silly router to work, without quirks.
-
Sorry, I forgot, yes, the camera server is 192.168.1.152 and the web server of the camera server is configured to respond to port 81. It will respond to that both locally and via the port forward (if I get it working). I used 81 so outsiders wouldn't be banging on port 80 trying to get in and wasn't sure if we were going to run their website locally or not.
-
Interesting that you couldn't get the DSR going. Haven't hear about any issues regarding that router and internet.
What wondering about ISP modem as some have built in routers and some use the .0.1 string. You can use any IP address that you wish though.
Also when your using PF rules or attempt too, you need to disable uPnP.
Please post a sample of the PF rule your trying to configure?
Can you try using Virtual Server section instead of PF?
-
Also, good thought for the future might be to use the default subnet of the router. That way you could do a hard reset and still be able to access it after. So that might be a good choice moving forward at other locations.
-
FurryNutz. I don't know how to post images in here. So an example of the PF rule I was trying to use is here: http://mytechco.com/dir-655/
-
For future reference: Adding Screenshots In A Post (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=58120.0)
-
Ok so I brought out my Rev C and connected it to my Laptop using Windows 7x32.
The router had a factory reset on it as soon as I went to the web page at 192.168.0.1 using IE11, I got the set up wizard. I cancelled it and input the PF configuration seen on your linked page. I used my laptops IP address of 192.168.0.100 instead since it's the only device LAN wired connected. I selected the check mark to enable it then selected Save. I didn't see the error message you reported. I saw the reboot now or later buttons. I selected the reboot now and the router rebooted. This is not to say that you don't have a problem. I would have to put this router online as the main router and test again. From offline review and configuration, i'm not seen the error message though.
-
Is that with Firmware Version 3.02 ?
-
Yes.
Just curious here, how many devices are all connected to this router at this one location? Total wired and wireless?
-
About 6 ip phones
About 6 computers
1 server
24 ip cameras
-
These cameras wired or wireless?
-
Everything I mentioned is wired. Only wireless would be peoples cell phones and such. Cameras go to a POE switch. Computers go to a regular switch. and the phones go to another switch (but probably don't have to, I just isolated them as they were having voice quality problems). The VOIP quality problem was the bandwidth. The VOIP call transfer problem was the (or I hope) RV series routers.
-
All this on a home class router. Hmm. I'm wondering if maybe that the device connection count on this particular router is maybe having bandwidth and configuration issues due to all whats connected. This router isn't really meant for high capacity connections. Maybe 30 at most.
I would try this, if you can get onsite. Use the one PC there that's wired and disconnect ALL other devices. Power them off or disconnect them from the router. Do a factory reset and set up an IP address reservation for the PC and 1 camera. Then go in and configure 1 PF rule. See if the setting will save. If so, reboot now. Disable uPnP as well and reboot. If still working at this point, connect the rest of the cameras and see.
I believe there is a limit on configuring and adding rules. It maybe 24. I don't know why D-Link does this so don't ask. Remember, this is a home class router, not a business class router.
If these cameras don't need much router management aside from PF rules, you might try using Static IP addresses ON the cameras instead of setting up IP reservations on the router as this will help save on reservation limits as well. Ya, there's a limit on reservations you can use on the router. So using Static IPs on Cameras, Printers and devices that don't need much router management is highly recommended.
-
I am definitely not a network expert, it is probably my lightest skillset in the IT area. Given that though here are my thoughts:
1. The ip cameras all have static ip addresses, as do all the printers and the server.
2. Although many businesses now days use some kind of cloud business app, making outside communications critical. This client has all their main apps behind the router. So for the most part, other than email traffic, internet browsing and phone, there isn't much coming in or out of the network. The cameras talk to the camera server, so most communications should be within the switch. Their main apps are Quickbooks and a scheduling app. Both reside on the server, along with their files, so again, most communications should be done through the switches, not much going in or out of the LAN.
So my understanding (albeit it basic) tells me that most communications are done through the switches, not the router.
-
Also, the cameras themselves don't need any PF rules. The only PF rule is port 81 so the owner can view the cameras from his home computer and iPhone. That definitely uses the router, but it isn't used often. So I only need 1 PF rule and about 5 QOS rules (for the phone). Other than that not much really going on at the router.
-
And if I could have gotten the DSR-500n to connect to the internet I would be using that. I called tech support on that and they had me clone my pc mac to the DSR-500n, but it still wouldn't connect that way either. So after 2 hours I gave up. I don't need wonky.
-
Are the static IP addresses set out side of the routers default IP address pool? 192.168.0.100 thru .200? Static addresses should be outside the pool, not with in.
Ya, switches are good.
Is the PF rule for a camera IP address?
-
Connecting the DSR to the 6141 modem?
Did you swap LAN cabling between them?
Did you try the DSR at a different location like home?
And if I could have gotten the DSR-500n to connect to the internet I would be using that. I called tech support on that and they had me clone my pc mac to the DSR-500n, but it still wouldn't connect that way either. So after 2 hours I gave up. I don't need wonky.
-
For now, I would get onsite and start with 1 camera and one PC and see if you can get the router to accept 1 PF rule. Disable uPnP. Do this while ALL other devices are disconnected from the router. If you can get one going, then configure the rest of the router for what you need then if all goes well, connect ALL devices.
Let us know how it goes.
-
Yes. All the cameras are above 200 (203 through 225). Outside the DHCP range.
I turned off the upnp. Thanks.
I guess I will go onsite and try the factory reset thing. Luckily there are only a few things to configure.
-
Is this a new setup? If not - I'm not sure if I missed previously in a post - what where you using before and was it working completely? If there was - why the switch out? (Just curious.... it sounds like what you are doing should work with this modem).
-
For the most part everything was working fine on an RV110w router. EXCEPT the fact that apparently the RV Series routers have an issue where the assign ip phones the same SIP port, which causes issues. The DIR-655 is on the VOIP providers list of approved routers, hence the move to this router. I do hope it will resolve the issue. It's just that it has now caused another, where I can't port forward.
-
Let us know how it goes when you get on site and factory reset the router with one camera with the PC. I would try using default 192.168.0.1 first as a test. If you can get PF to work here, you could try changing to .1.1 and see.
-
Ok, so here is some follow up info.
I went onsite and reset the router to factory. Logged in 0.1 and for fun added a port forward. it worked fine. I then changed subnet to 1.1 and restarted. Went to port forward and the one I entered was gone. Which is fine because it changed subnets so there was no 0.152. So then I tried adding the 1.152:81 forward and got the 413 message again. Ahhh! I restarted though and it was there (I saw this in a post that this might happen). When I go in and try to add another, yup, I get the message 413 again. Tried to reboot to see if it showed up and it didn't. Tried adding it again and get the 413 message.
I was hoping this would be a good replacement for my RV series which dont' play well with VOIP, but I can't deal with this wonkiness. So, if anyone has any suggestions on a router that will work well with VOIP and is inexpensive, easy to configure and solid, suggestions are welcome. RV series is out due to sip port assigment issues. DIR-655 is out due to some "funny" things which I have to work too hard to finally make work, DSR-500n seems to be out as it shoudl have just connected to the internet without an issue (the RV110W did and the DIR-655 did).
So I'm looking for a descent basic router that can handle 60/5 and 100/10 and supports VOIp and port forwarding. This would be for many of my clients. For the hard core ones who want all teh security and bells and whistles I guess I'm looking at Cisco Meraki or Dell Sonicwall.
Thanks for all the help with this.
-
I would try using the .0.1 DHCP pool instead of .1.1. Seems like if you got it to work on .0.1, then it should work all around for this pool address.
-
Thanks. I thought about that .... until ... I realized that I would have to manually change the ip address on:
1 Server
6 Printers
24 ip cameras
That's when I decided that I shouldn't have to be doing all this dorking around and troubleshooting, the equipment should work and if it doesn't or is THIS quirky, I can't afford to put it in any of my clients environments. I may still go with D-Link (different model) down the road, but I got my hands on a Netgear R6220 and heading down there this morning to replace it.
D-Link needs to get itself into stores like Best Buy and Staples. I went there for a new router the other day and both stores were pretty much exclusively Netgear and a Linksys or 2 and same for Staples.
-
I find D-Link routers in Office Max/Depot.
-
Thanks. The Office Max that was 15 minutes from me closed. So now the closest one is 30 minutes. So I guess I'm kind of in test mode right now. I replaced the DIR-655 that I was having problems with with that netgear R6220. So we will see how that goes this week. I also found someone selling 3 DIR-655's on ebay and got them for like $20. So when they arrive I will have the new one I have and the 3 old ones from ebay to dork around with and test. If those work I will replace some of the cisco's rv110w's with those, otherwise, if that R6220 works well at my one client I might stick with that for my smaller clients.
Ironically in the lower end market (aka, "not security appliance" area) I think the consumer products might be better than some of the "business" routers because with all the streaming and gaming, they have had to make the consumer ones perform just as fast if not faster than the business ones.
-
What Rev models are the ones from ebay?
-
Unfortunately they didn't list it in the ad. Even if you could tell the hardware rev by UPC, I'm not sure if they used teh real UPC or just pulled the specs and that info from Amazon. So will have to wait until I receive them.
The one that I brought back to my office from the client is Hardware: C2 and Firmware: 3.02.
Although I can seem to get it to throw the 413 error now and then, a reboot seems to fix it so I can enter more port forwards since I have 4 of them in there now as a test. And I am using the 192.168.1.1 subnet.
Sooooo, maybe in the end, my normal practice is to dive right into configuring a router and the last step is to update the firmware. I guess I will change my process to update firmware first, then factory reset, then configure. After that I will only upgrade firmware if there is an issue that new firmware addresses and realize that chances are I will have to factory reset after and reconfigure it all again (as in don't even export and import the old config).
I'm going to set QOS settings on this now for my phone system (8x8.com) and see how that goes. Then test the others out when they arrive. Although I'm still kind of leaning that for anything new, I will go with the NG R6220. There were just no quirks with it at all during the setup and I'm not sure if teh DIR-655 is even going to continue to be made.
Thanks again.
-
Im hoping it maybe Rev B. BLUE LED is Rev A and B, Green is C only.
-
The routers I bought from Ebay won't arrive till tomorrow. So no update on what REv's they are. However, just some more information since I have been using this Rev C one in my home/office. Ironically my home office is probably a more taxing on a router than any of the businesses I take care of as I have two teen age kids who are always either gaming or streaming netflix, along with my wife streaming netflix and often myself as well.
Overall the performance seems great. How is that measured? My son is yelling at his computer while playing League of Legends and saying "This stupid LAG!!!". So performance wise we are good.
I was dorking around today and wanted to make 2 changes. I wanted to name the router mytechco and I wanted to name the local domain mytechco.com
I did that and hit save and instantly got the error 413 - Request Entity Too Large. I instantly rebooted the router and made the changes again and hit save and it worked.
So my theory (probably wrong, but what the heck) is that when the router has been running for some time, I assume there is memory in it that is being used and over time it is used effectively to cache things (call them what you will, routes, dns resolutions, or whatever else a router might store in memory). At that time, if you try and make a change and there is no more capacity to temporarily store the changes, it throws this error. As soon as you restart (I assume clearing out the memory) you can now quickly make and save those changes before the memory is all used up.
Again, could be totally off base, but my only guess at this point.
-
I was told the following:
"-Not easily reproduced.
-Resolved when using a different browser.
-"413 Request Entity too large" is a HTTP browser error.
It might be a browser cache issue or HTTP code conflict between client and server. I highly doubt it is a router firmware issue."
-
Thanks! I'm sticking with my theory though. Here's why
1. For us to use a web browser to connect to the router, it HAS to have some kind of web server on it. Obviously it needs to be a very light weight and low memory usages server. If you search the web for the 413 error you are often directed to people trying to upload large files to a web server. Often they complain it is a nginx web server.
2. Nginx has a Linux version.
3. I'm guessing the router software is linux based and running nginx as its web server.
4. I'm guessing over time that there isn't enough memory to make configuration changes and a reboot clears up some memory and therefor after a reboot you can then make changes without getting the error.
This morning I made changes and got the error using Chrome. I rebooted the router and made the changes without the error. Still using Chrome and not clearing the cache or anything.
Now that the router has been running all day, I figured I would try to make another change, a simple port forward, and sure enough it threw the error again. I'm guessing if I reboot I cold then make the change.
This may or may not be the issue, but it seems logical to me and I hate the random. It has to be explainable and it's the best I can come up with.
-
Are you using the default 192.168.0.1 or .1.1 address?
Have you tired instead of rebooting the router when you see the error, before attempting to log into the router and make a change, clear the browser cache, exit the browser, then reopen the browser and access the routers UI then make change?
-
I'm still using the 1.1 sub net
I just tried clearing the chrome cache and still got the 413 error
I can live with a reboot of the router and have it work after. I can't live with having to readdress all my clients printers, cameras, servers, etc. One takes about 45 seconds, the other could take all day
-
Ok. Well I hope the other Revs coming in are Rev A or B. I never saw this issue there on mine.
FYI, the 655 development is now closed so this issue won't be addressed at the FW level. Sorry. ::)
-
What is the closest replacement for the DIR-655?
I think I may be using the DSR-250 or DSR-500 for businesses, but curious what might be a good replacement for the DIR-655 for home users.
-
For a time the 657 was a follow on however it was an internal antenna model router. All 6xx series routers are only 2.4Ghz wireless supporting. Only the 627 was supporting of both 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz however not simultaneously.
There is a DIR-636L, this is another internal antenna router.
Most newer routers in the past two years are now supporting both 2.4 and 5Ghz wireless. I haven't seen much in a 2.4ghz only lately that's new.
Again, these routers are ok for small businesses with maybe up to 20 connected devices. Depending. I put a Rev C in a flower shop for a friend of mine, however only has 3 PCs, two printers and two VoIP phones and two cells phones and thats it.
I would recommend a DSR for those businesses that seems to need more connected client management configurations. Can connect any AP to the DSR for wireless. Even wire connect a 655 in AP mode for wireless if needed.
-
Yes, for the businesses I'm going to move to wired DSR-250 and DSR-500 and use APs, maybe the DAP 2660's.
For smaller businesses or homes, maybe the DIR-842. It still has probably what I need, which is at least port forwarding and QOS to configure VOIP.
-
Just be aware that all of the newer routers have the new UI. The last router model to have the old UI is the DIR-866.
For most VoIP stuff, I use the DMZ so I don't have to configure anything. I use this for my ATT microcell at home.
-
Thanks. Although nice to get used to the same interface, will deal with it. Networking isn't my strongest point so have never played with a DMZ. Will have to check it out, just as I also need to learn more about VLANS. Would probably be best to have cameras on one VLAN, phones on another and computers on another. However I would have to figure that all out and if it is done at the router, the switch(es) or both. Then of course have to figure out if I need 2 nics for the server that both the cameras and computers talk to, etc..
-
The used DIR-655's showed up today. There are:
H/W Ver: A4 F/W Ver: 1.21
H/W Ver: B1 F/W Ver: 2.00NA
H/W Ver: B1 F/W Ver: 2.10NA
I haven't fired them up yet so I'm not sure if that is the actual Firmware that is on them. As usual my plan would be to update them to the latest before messing with them. They are in nice shape.
-
I did test one of the H/W Rev B routers. I upgraded the firmware to 2.11. For the most part everything worked well, I cold add a port forward without an error. I added numerous Qos settings for VoIP without an issue and I changed the subnet to 192.168.1.1 without an issue.
The only issue I ran into was that the router didn't seem to detect the upload speed. I ran a speedtest and got 5.95mbs. So I manually set the uplink speed to 5950kps and hit save. I got a message stating the value should be between 20kbps and 2mbps. So should I just leave it at Automatic (where it doesn't seem to pick up the speed, or should I set it to the max of 2048kbps?
-
Ok, Those are also good routers. I enjoyed my Rev B I got from fleabay as well. I found a Rev A at a local recycle store couple of years ago. Only thing with Rev A is that you should set compatibility mode when using IE11 for the UI. Both Rev A and B are limited on the QoS Uplink speeds at 2Mb. Don't ask me why. I presume that D-link presumed back in the day that 2Mb was good enough for home users and Most ISPs didn't offer much over 2Mb services.
You can work around this for Rev B only:
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=55233.msg271069#msg271069 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=55233.msg271069#msg271069)
-
Uhmmm, this could get 'weird' trying to think about. For example I and many of my clients have 5mb uplink speed. If QOS uplink is limited to 2mb what is the actual impact? If I'm uploading something that doesn't have a QOS rule it could be done at 5mb? If I'm uploading something that has QOS it will be limited to 2mb but still take priority over something else that I might be uploading at 5mb? The reason I ask is because the only QOS I'm doing is for VOIP. VOIP doesn't need a lot of bandwidth, but it needs a higher priority. So maybe just leaving it at the Dlink FW and letting it throttle at 2mb for QOS is fine, since VOIP doesn't need that much, but just needs to be at a higher priority? Thoughts?
-
Any IP addresses put in to QoS will only see 2Mb max if enabled. If your ok with this then that's fine. Anything not included in the QoS should see 5Mb though.
You'll see speed test return only 2Mb on the uplink test is all. If your not worried about max speeds then that's fine.
If your worried about VoIP, then you can use DMZ as well, however you can only put one device in DMZ so if you have multiple VoIP devices, then QoS would be better.
-
Thanks. Good explanation. I think I will stick with the normal FW as VOIP shouldn't need more than 2mb as long as it gets it quickly.
They have 6 phones, so DMZ won't work. Although I'm sure there is another way, maybe.
You also bring up an interesting question I have about the traditional speedtes.net. Which is, what ports are actually used to do the test? I do have clients that freak out if the speed test doesn't give them what they are paying for. If I knew the ports speed test used, they could be put into QOS as well, or in this case, left out of it.
-
Not entirely sure what ports are used, I presume maybe 80.
I would recommend just setting one PC or device that doesn't need to be in the QoS and use this as the speed test PC. All others don't really need to speed test.
-
Another good solid 6 series router is the DIR-645 I forgot to mention:
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?board=287.0 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?board=287.0)