• April 27, 2024, 03:31:24 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

This Forum Beta is ONLY for registered owners of D-Link products in the USA for which we have created boards at this time.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: Static routing to LAN interface  (Read 32020 times)

Demonized

  • Level 4 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2009, 02:27:09 AM »

Mother nature does not care one way or the other. Mother nature could care less if all life disappeared tomorrow. Humans are the ones that would have the problem. That is why all of this "save the planet" stuff is bogus. The gasses we produce are but a lifted cheek compared to what the planet has seen throughout time immemorial. If all animal species died tonight, more would come to take their place. The planet doesn't need saving. It is us that needs saving from ourselves. A 10 kilometer diameter rock from space would bring a little perspective to the climate debate.

And saving the planet equals saving ourselves. How about that?
Logged

PeterJvM

  • Level 2 Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2009, 03:59:47 AM »

Agree with you but watch out(sensitive territory), in the past I kept reminding 'L' that I could't find this in the changelog and that I didn't get an answer from him. Eventually(after 3 times) people began using the 'TROLL'-word.


It has come to my experience that firmware upgrades usually improves the performance of a device. When reading changelogs they most often say things like "fixed", "improved", "added", "pached" and so on...

That FAQ you have linked to doesn't say anything about that you have removed LAN routing from the device. Could you please quote the line that says that you have removed it?

1. FW 1.10 - Removes ALG functionality.
2. FW 1.11 - Removed the support of 802.11d.
3. FW 1.21 - Remove Enhanced IGMP Proxy GUI

Ok, LAN routes aren't used by all people, but they are often used by persons skilled in this area. And those are the people that quite a lot gets questions regarding what product to buy etc.

I have been a loyal dlink customer for a couple of years now and I have been recommending your products to people asking me what they should be using when setting up their home offices, and I guess that so have they within their network.

These things spread like rings on water.
Logged
Peter

DIR-655 ( H/W: A2 ) ( FW: 1.21b05beta )
DWA-140 ( H/W: B1 ) ( FW: 0.20 DRV: Ralink 2.3.7.0 )
DWA-140 ( H/W: B1 ) ( FW: 0.20 DRV: Ralink 2.3.7.0 )
Intel 3945ABG ( H/W: REV 02 ) ( FW: 11.5.0.32 )

Fatman

  • Level 9 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2009, 08:51:44 AM »

Well, looking at the state of mother nature humans do not really excel in foresight and insight...having a superior brain does not guarantee the best overall choices to be made.

My point exactly, we don't make the change because we have not been forced to overcome the fear of change and utilize the insight and foresight which would provide the better answers.  That superior brain provides the impetus of laziness here as well as the ability to think our way out of danger (so far).

And saving the planet equals saving ourselves. How about that?

Isn't the first mandate survival of the species?

A 10 kilometer diameter rock from space would bring a little perspective to the climate debate.

Just what every single man fears a 10K rock destroying his environment!  There goes my bachelor pad!

Offtopic????
Logged
non progredi est regredi

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2009, 08:57:19 AM »

Just what every single man fears a 10K rock destroying his environment!  There goes my bachelor pad!

Fatman, fear not, your tinfoil hat will protect you!
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

Fatman

  • Level 9 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2009, 09:00:09 AM »

Fatman, fear not, your tinfoil hat will protect you!
And here I thought that birth control glasses would have been more effective!

Last time I wore a tinfoil hat to work (Why can I say that phrase truthfully?) it didn't last long.  Apparently it gives a bad impression.  Whoodathunkit?


*** Modified by Fatman, who never learned to proofread his posts before he hit the "Post" button.
Logged
non progredi est regredi

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2009, 09:08:54 AM »

And here I thought that birth control glasses would have been more effective!

Last time I wore a tinfoil hat to work (Why can I say that phrase truthfully?) it didn't last long.  Apparently it gives a bad impression.  Whoodathunkit?


*** Modified by Fatman, who never learned to proofread his posts before he hit the "Post" button.

Fatman, you just provided me with the laugh of the day. Maybe the week. Birth control glasses - that is a concept I am unfamiliar with. Do they work??? Are they anything like X-Ray glasses? (They DO work, so I've been told)

Profound apologies to PeterJvM who is trying to put this thread back on the tracks.
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

Fatman

  • Level 9 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2009, 09:11:38 AM »

I was hoping that would be one you got, oh well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_glasses
Logged
non progredi est regredi

PeterJvM

  • Level 2 Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2009, 09:33:23 AM »

I had no illusions about that.
Since people already know I got derailed myself(by the first rays of the risıng sun).

Profound apologies to PeterJvM who is trying to put this thread back on the tracks.
Logged
Peter

DIR-655 ( H/W: A2 ) ( FW: 1.21b05beta )
DWA-140 ( H/W: B1 ) ( FW: 0.20 DRV: Ralink 2.3.7.0 )
DWA-140 ( H/W: B1 ) ( FW: 0.20 DRV: Ralink 2.3.7.0 )
Intel 3945ABG ( H/W: REV 02 ) ( FW: 11.5.0.32 )

Fatman

  • Level 9 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2009, 09:42:34 AM »

To speak to the topic at hand is actually quite simple.

Currently D-Link does not allow it.

Your request has been noted, but we can do nothing further for you here than to provide camaraderie (or distraction).
Logged
non progredi est regredi

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2009, 10:00:56 AM »

I was hoping that would be one you got, oh well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_glasses

I am flabbergasted. I learn more from the D-Link forums than from all my years of schoolin'.

Fatman gets an applause for being such a smart feller.
PeterJvM for being such a good sport.

 
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

Fatman

  • Level 9 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2009, 10:23:56 AM »

Besides BCG don't work or I wouldn't be here.  Both my parents wore them.
Logged
non progredi est regredi

davevt31

  • Level 9 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2009, 10:37:02 AM »

I was hoping that would be one you got, oh well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_glasses
Hey now, I had a couple of pairs of those glasses.    Took one and had the lenses tinted so that they looked like Ray-Bans.
Logged

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2009, 10:50:21 AM »

Hey now, I had a couple of pairs of those glasses.    Took one and had the lenses tinted so that they looked like Ray-Bans.

Wayfarer's?
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

mig

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2009, 01:00:57 PM »

A 10 kilometer diameter rock from space would bring a little perspective to the climate debate.

Heaven help us  :D  http://www.nbc.com/survival-sundays/video/categories/meteor/1134442/
Logged

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Static routing to LAN interface
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2009, 03:16:53 PM »

Heaven help us  :D  http://www.nbc.com/survival-sundays/video/categories/meteor/1134442/

That's what I'm talking about. Finally, someone has brought something relevent to the discussion. Since we are on the topic, I found this interesting tidbit: BIG BANG IN ANTARCTICA -- KILLER CRATER FOUND UNDER ICE.  http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm
Yes boys and girls, a meteor approximately 30 miles wide, 5 times bigger than the one that made Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan peninsula. It left a crater 300 miles wide. Talk about spoiling your day. Scientist suggest that it could have begun the breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent by creating the tectonic rift that pushed Australia northward. AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE! - OY OY OY!

Some data on the Chicxulub asteroid (thanks Wikipedia): The impactor's estimated size was about 10 km * (6 mi) in diameter and is estimated to have released 4×1023 joules of energy, equivalent to 100,000,000 megatons * of TNT on impact. By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons, making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful.

If this newly discovered meteor is 5 times bigger, that must mean that the released energy was like, at least twice as much!

* Wow, what a cooincidence. 10 kilometers wide. Where have I heard that before?
* Since I am such a math whiz I hesitate to ask for verification but, isn't that the same as One hundred million million tons of TNT?

Has anyone ever seen film footage of the Tsar Bomba explosion? If memory serves, it was originally supposed to be a 100 megaton bomb but the Russians kinda, sorta, were worried so they reduced it by half in order to limit the amount of nuclear fallout that would result. (Thanks Khrushchev!) It was scary-pretty. Hydrogen bomb explosions are quite unique. This one left me with a OMG! expression.

All I need to do now is tie all of this to "Static routing to LAN interface" and I'll be square.
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4