D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: tentimes on September 18, 2009, 11:08:41 AM
-
I would be grateful for any update at all from the Dlink staff. Dying here with 1.32NA and would love to know if an update is coming soon.
-
They don't give estimates when firmware will be put out. When its ready they will post it.
-
Can we not let them answer this? They might give more information. I am in no doubt that you have no idea when the next firmware might be released, but I suspect they might have a better idea, even if it's a very rough ball-park estimate.
-
That question has been asked and answered the same way for the 2 years that I have been on this board. No estimates on when firmware will be done.
-
This istuation is a little different from the last 2 years though, we have a really troublesome firmware and I think we need an update on how things are going on the fix. No harm in asking. If you don't want to know then that's ok.
-
It's not that I don't want to know about new firmware, it's just the way that things are done. It's the same way with game producers, everyone wants to know when the next patch for a game is coming out. The answer is always the same in both instances, it will come out when its done.
Also, not everyone is having trouble with this firmware, which makes doing a new one even harder. If there was a specific thing that they need to work on, that is a lot easier to fix than some people having this problem, others having a different one and even others having no issues.
-
x2 for an update. Let D-Link provide an answer.
-
This istuation is a little different from the last 2 years though, we have a really troublesome firmware and I think we need an update on how things are going on the fix. No harm in asking. If you don't want to know then that's ok.
No, no harm in asking. But davevt31 is just managing your expectations. The situation is not really different from 2 years ago. Like davevt31 days: there are some people with issues, not the whole population.
-
Judging by the sizeable amount of complaints both on this websites and across the internet I am minded to think a very significant amount of the userbase has problems with this latest firmware. It's a scandal frankly, and should have been addressed much more effectively. There should be regular feedback from the company on their progress on this - I would advocate weekly feedback given the scale of the issues faced.
Certainly if I am coding something for a company and there are bugs I would expect to have to give answers. They haven't even asked for peoples config files yet and it's been months now. That would have been the first thing I did if I couldn't recreate it in the lab. Unfortunately this is what you get with a global disconnect (thousands of miles) between CS/Sales and the company that engineers the firmware.
To be fair though the mods/devs on this forum don't duck the issue like many other companies would, so I have to give them their dues for that - they are always as helpful as they can be. I think this is a bad communication problem between Taiwan and the rest of the company. Just MHO.
-
I've been programming computers for the last 30 years. We're all human. Computer bugs are to be expected. But the deadliest sin Dlink programmers had committed is: not allowing rollback to previous versions! That's the dumbest to the nth degree! You don't burn the bridge after you'd crossed.
In software, nothing can't be reverted. It's just will and skill.
Excuse my outburst. I just hate to see a great router become an unreliable piece of hardware.
-
I've been programming computers for the last 30 years. We're all human. Computer bugs are to be expected. But the deadliest sin Dlink programmers had committed is: not allowing rollback to previous versions! That's the dumbest to the nth degree! You don't burn the bridge after you'd crossed.
In software, nothing can't be reverted. It's just will and skill.
Excuse my outburst. I just hate to see a great router become an unreliable piece of hardware.
Try to grasp the kernel situation in hardware/firmware and you will soon understand why a rollback is not possible/that simple.
-
Judging by the sizeable amount of complaints both on this websites and across the internet I am minded to think a very significant amount of the userbase has problems with this latest firmware. It's a scandal frankly, and should have been addressed much more effectively. There should be regular feedback from the company on their progress on this - I would advocate weekly feedback given the scale of the issues faced.
Certainly if I am coding something for a company and there are bugs I would expect to have to give answers. They haven't even asked for peoples config files yet and it's been months now. That would have been the first thing I did if I couldn't recreate it in the lab. Unfortunately this is what you get with a global disconnect (thousands of miles) between CS/Sales and the company that engineers the firmware.
To be fair though the mods/devs on this forum don't duck the issue like many other companies would, so I have to give them their dues for that - they are always as helpful as they can be. I think this is a bad communication problem between Taiwan and the rest of the company. Just MHO.
Getting the only configs will not do it. I can tell you they (Dlink) have tried recreating the issues on RMA-ed devices. Unfortunately they were not able to do that. This woulfd indicate that there might be a connection with other hardware devices used, either network periphirals or PC clients.
-
Try to grasp the kernel situation in hardware/firmware and you will soon understand why a rollback is not possible/that simple.
That simple? Then there is a design flaw at the very beginning! What is so restricted that you can't prepare a contingency "escape" route? Engineers never expect the best to happen, but always prepare for the worst. Didn't they teach that in engineering school anymore?
-
Try to grasp the kernel situation in hardware/firmware and you will soon understand why a rollback is not possible/that simple.
So they say. A straight rollback may be problematic but I've got to believe there is a way to create an upgrade that returns the 655 to stable 1.21 functionality. Creating that upgrade might disrupt their development pipeline but it would appear to be a faster solution than whatever they've been doing for the past several weeks in trying to salvage 1.32a. It seems to me that DLink simply isn't treating the situation as a crisis as there probably aren't enough of us out there to justify (in their opinion) changing course. I assume that new purchasers are getting the old firmware - they should offer trade-ins to those of us stuck in this situation but I'm not holding my breath.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I've gotten to the point where I need to treat it as a crisis for myself. Particularly because DLink won't even estimate when this problem might be fixed. This means ditching the 655 and going with something else. I won't consider DLink on principal. I'm thinking Apple but would be curious to hear any alternative recommendations.
- Gus
-
I guess in order to facilitate a rollback to the older kernel the upgrade/downgrade mechanism needs to be changed since kernel updates are locked. Perhaps they can do a new firmware with better downgrade abilities, I don't know. But as I remember well, the 1.2x firmware was even worse when i comes to router performance and Shareport performance. So I really would stay away from that series. 1.11 seems to be stable, but you'll be lacking a lot of features. The A4 revisions are the ones that also need the new kernel to function properly and will not be able to downgrade to 1.11 anyway since the hardware inside is not supported by 1.11.
For me the 1.32 works like a charm (router & Shareport). So no need here to downgrade all the way back.
-
But as I remember well, the 1.2x firmware was even worse when i comes to router performance and Shareport performance.
Yes, it was a lot worse.
For me the 1.32 works like a charm (router & Shareport). So no need here to downgrade all the way back.
Works perfect for me as well.
I tend to feel some of these problems may be the way people are flashing (over wireless or maybe antivirus scanning while uploading file) or something in the way the router is configured.
Maybe uploading the old config from 1.11 after flashing. ???
-
I just can't get over EddieZ's arrogance.
He repeatedly talks down to, and minimizes, the reports of problems by other users. He repeatedly states that "this doesn't apply to the whole population". This is true, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. His posts are fanboy irrelevancies, but I guess that's what happens when you live on a router forum for years.
So, with no irony at all, he turns to his "this doesn't apply to everyone" shtick, and uses it himself with this comment:
"But as I remember well, the 1.2x firmware was even worse when i comes to router performance and Shareport performance."
So, there you go. Since for him the above statement is true, then it must be true for everyone. For me, the above statement is false.
So, I too want some kind of feedback from dlink. I don't expect hard dates, but just the occasional check-in that says, "Yes, we're still working on it."
-
Just have a look back on the forum about the 1.2x firmware. You'll be surprised what comes up. Wheras I might be 'talking the issues down', there's tons of others that present the issues as being generic. While there's proof that it simply cannot be generic. I'm not denying someone can have issues and certainly not claiming the product is perfect.
Since there's others like me that don't have issue or only minor ones, I feel it is only fair to show that too. Also this keeps this forum from being nothing more than a stage for ranters and tech n00bs, taking into account this forum is not a direct communication channel with Dlink, but a users-help-users place.
When telling others that I have no issues and trying to let n00bs gain some more insight on how networking works and that it depends on more than a router alone is being qualified as 'arrogance' there's really something wrong with your attitude. If you're not happy and the router does not function, simply RMA it.
-
Yes, it was a lot worse.
Works perfect for me as well.
I tend to feel some of these problems may be the way people are flashing (over wireless or maybe antivirus scanning while uploading file) or something in the way the router is configured.
Maybe uploading the old config from 1.11 after flashing. ???
There's tons of possibilities that can screw up a config or a network topology. But luckily it's all self proclaimed experts here that have perfect knowledge of Windows, hardware and networking 8)
And since I'm accused of being arrogant: Maybe it's just my degree of expertise that lets me have a perfectly working network. :P
-
Just using the word n00bs is enough to prove you are arrogant.
I can't RMA my router because it is around 2 years old. It was working practically flawlessly until I flashed 1.32NA on it, and now shareport is unuseable. The only problem I had with shareport on 1.21 was related to the shareport clients, not the router. The clients sometimes wouldn't have a connection to the router after a computer awoke from sleep. Stopping and re-starting the client software always fixed the problem.
Under 1.21, I went months between rebooting the router. In fact, I never had to reboot it that I can remember. It just always worked. Now, under 1.32NA, I have to reboot every single time I want to print something.
When the exact same symptoms are described by multiple users in different environments, you know there is a problem. All of this discussion about whether it is generic is beside the point.
-
Nope, that's no arrogance. That's reality.
With 1.21 you're probably one of the lucky few that had no issues....Hey, that's the same situation as we have here with 1.3x, only it's the other way around!
But in case you missed it: I'm not denying that there are users with issues. I do challenge the fact it's qualified as a generic issue with the firmware, dismissing all other possibilites in configuration and topology. More or less the same claim you make about 1.2x.... ;D
-
H/W A3 w. 1.32 NA.
No problems with 1.21 f/w. Huge problems w. 1.32NA. I am checking this site everyday now for a f/w upgrade. I ditto the comment about updates!
-
H/W A3 w. 1.32 NA.
No problems with 1.21 f/w. Huge problems w. 1.32NA. I am checking this site everyday now for a f/w upgrade. I ditto the comment about updates!
Have you tried loading defaults then manually setting the network?
I had problems with the router when I loaded an old configuration after flashing the latest firmware but after a reset to default/manual entry of setting all is well.
-
"I just can't get over EddieZ's arrogance."
x2 on that one as well. You need to learn to ignore comments from people like that when you participate on forums. Eventually they move on when you don't respond to them and they find some other way to perpetuate their ego.
-
look at this post from Lycan from d-link !
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=7588.msg48512#msg48512 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=7588.msg48512#msg48512)
regards
kthaddock
-
"For those of you that continue to suffer with unusable routers do to firmware failure I suggest you contact technical support and request a replacement that has the previous firmware version. For now this is all we can do."
That's great in theory but does not go too smoothly in actuality.
-
Not going as smoothly? Thats a good point. I mean, you call the phone# and you get someone that may or may not be involved with the forums here. They may just make you go through every single step. If Lycan (or another moderator) could outline a quicker process for RMA that would be great.
Why would I think thats appropriate? Well, the people on these forums are generally the ones that are spending their own personal time testing out other users's ideas to resolve their problems, helping beta test new firmwares, and no doubt saving time and money for dlink. These forums are basically how-to's for users, with most information submitted by users, no? What company isn't jumping on the Free Forum for Advise, for their customers... bandwagon lol? ;)
Would be great if we could at least skip 1 hoop by calling and as soon as they say hello, we're just like "Yeah um, im from the forums and stuff? i've got 20posts regarding my model, spent about 15hours working on this, and still have a problem." and they go "Well dang, thanks for spending all that time yourself, talking to other people about our products and trying to figure it out..hows about a cup of hot chocolate? and another DIR-655 AX 1.X" lol ya knows?
-
When there is so much so random problems and everybody is looking nothing but firmware, could it be something really weird like securespot settings etc (including trial time settings) BEFORE firmware upgrade? It is enabled by default after upgrade and are connecting to "somewhere" and talking about settings etc with "someone"... Maybe stupid idea but so are this issues too. ;D
-
Works perfect for me as well.
I tend to feel some of these problems may be the way people are flashing (over wireless or maybe antivirus scanning while uploading file) or something in the way the router is configured.
Maybe uploading the old config from 1.11 after flashing. ???
I re-flashed my DIR-655 to 1.32NA about a week ago. I downloaded a new flash file and Shareport utility just before doing the flash. I did it over a wired connection and reset my router to defaults before doing the flash. I set it all back up manually and installed Shareport. So far 7 plus days and Shareport is still working. I'd bet some of the problems are bad flashes. There are going to be some that do it over wireless without knowing they shouldn't. Maybe there should be some better more detailed instructions, a defined procedure for flashing the firmware. Granted not everybody is going to follow it but it may save some people from a bad flash. If my Shareport does keep working that would be what I think happened to me. I'm using all the same network settings I used before when Shareport didn't work. Just my 2 cents.
-
That's good information, alphanumeric. I plan on following the same procedure you did and try to do the whole thing over again.
When I moved from 1.21 to 1.32NA, I did it on a wired connection, but I used the saved config file from 1.21 to set it up again. There seems to be some hint that maybe using the config file is not a good idea. Maybe these problems are not related to the lower-level network processing of the router but simply a bad mapping of an older config file into the new firmware (which would still be a bug). Just pure speculation.
Anyway, it may be a few days until I can re-do everything. I am very interested in your continuing status. If you can, keep us posted. Thanks!
-
hey kevtech! thx for the suggestion. didn't work though. :( i'm doomed until they put out the new firmware.
-
That's good information, alphanumeric. I plan on following the same procedure you did and try to do the whole thing over again.
When I moved from 1.21 to 1.32NA, I did it on a wired connection, but I used the saved config file from 1.21 to set it up again. There seems to be some hint that maybe using the config file is not a good idea. Maybe these problems are not related to the lower-level network processing of the router but simply a bad mapping of an older config file into the new firmware (which would still be a bug). Just pure speculation.
Anyway, it may be a few days until I can re-do everything. I am very interested in your continuing status. If you can, keep us posted. Thanks!
I started a thread about my re-flash in the PC Shareport section of the forum. I'm going to update that one as time goes by. Right now I only have Shareport installed on one PC. Once I'm sure its not going to **** out again I'm going to install it on a second PC and see if that muddies the waters. ;)
-
nebody hear ne news on new firmware yet? *crosses fingers*
-
If you have issues with 1.32NA, then you should go back to 1.31 as i did. Im having less issues now. No reboots or lock ups for a week.
-
were can get version 1.31
Send it to me
-
You can get it here.
ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/dir655/Firmware/
dir655_firmware_131.zip
-
??? I wrote to their technical support people 6 days ago now to tell them that VoIP application don't work any more. To this day I have not received any answers from Dlink support. Basically, what is happening, No RTP and SIP packets are being transfered across the router anymore. I is a great shame that Dlink will not talk about when these firmware issues are going to be fixed. As we now have this issue on a number of sites.
This was a great product, but their is a urgency for us and we will have to change our routers out for ones that work for our VoIP application.
-
I downgraded to 1.31 and main features that were broken (port forwarding or virtual server; either one for me) are now fixed again. Not sure about DNS relay.. but I would advise anybody to downgrade to 1.31 - it's easy to try this.
-
I downgraded to 1.31 and main features that were broken (port forwarding or virtual server; either one for me) are now fixed again. Not sure about DNS relay.. but I would advise anybody to downgrade to 1.31 - it's easy to try this.
A bad 1.32 flash or recovery from tha config file may be the cause of this....
-
??? I wrote to their technical support people 6 days ago now to tell them that VoIP application don't work any more. To this day I have not received any answers from Dlink support. Basically, what is happening, No RTP and SIP packets are being transfered across the router anymore. I is a great shame that Dlink will not talk about when these firmware issues are going to be fixed. As we now have this issue on a number of sites.
This was a great product, but their is a urgency for us and we will have to change our routers out for ones that work for our VoIP application.
If it is business critical for you, you might want to consider having a matching support contract...
You are not mentioning the attempts to get it working. What has already been done trying to resolve it?
-
for me the downgrade fixed the port forwarding to (firmware 1.31).
With 1.32 i already try several things, but port forwarding didnt work, and shareport was a mess also (also rest to defaults)
-
1.21 is not that great. I upgraded to it hoping I'd be able to do a simple schedule which was the whole reason I bought this router to manage my teenagers internet access and it can't be done because the firmware code can't handle time in the 12:00 to 12:59 range.
It appears to have been a completely untested feature.
-
I've got mine set to block my Daughters PC from 1230 AM to 700 AM daily. What I found was the router didn't keep good time. She complained to me one afternoon that she couldn't get on the Internet. When I checked things on my router the time was way off even though I had already adjusted it to the correct time. Checking "Enable NTP Server" fixed that though and it's blocking her at the correct times now. So what happens when you try to set it up?
-
A new beta has been posted in the Beta Code section.
-
new beta has been removed? I cant find it newhere even though it was posted only yesterday. From other posts read people were saying it didnt correct nething.
-
D-Link Xtreme N (Platinum Products)» DIR-655 » Beta Code!» Firmware 1.32 Build 04 beta 01 for new Shareport version
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=8369.0
ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/dir655/Beta/Firmware/dir655_fw_132b04NA_beta01.zip
-
hmm this firmware doesnt address the problems i have been having with my dns issues (even when disabled)
-
hmm this firmware doesnt address the problems i have been having with my dns issues (even when disabled)
I think your DNS issues are caused by something else than the router (broken device?). If there is still something as the DNS relay bug, turning the feature off should solve it. Simply because when turning it off the router does not interfere anymore with DNS lookups. Not in any way.
Could you post some data supporting your claim?
-
H/W A3 F/W 1.32NA. Some pages I load takes a while too load at times or doesnt load at all. Maybe its not DNS related I have no idea, but it needs to be fixed. Sometimes even I load a page and it doesnt show anything. I put in a log file a few weeks ago I dont know if it will help, but maybe you can tell me whats wrong. Its from a previous post.
Re: I'm done with Dlink and 1.32na
« Reply #124 on: September 16, 2009, 06:26:51 PM » Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A3 H/W 1.32NA Log
1589 Log Entries: Priority Time Message
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:24:01 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <-> 174.115.165.90:59628 <-> 192.168.0.197:59628 UDP timeout:0 'Teredo'
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:22:17 2009 Above message repeated 3 times
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:22:06 2009 Allowed configuration authentication by IP address 192.168.0.197
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:21:36 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <-> 174.115.165.90:59628 <-> 192.168.0.197:59628 UDP timeout:0 'Teredo'
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:21:04 2009 Blocked incoming UDP packet from 64.46.16.166:21687 to 174.115.165.90:21687
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:20:59 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <-> 174.115.165.90:59628 <-> 192.168.0.197:59628 UDP timeout:0 'Teredo'
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:20:23 2009 Above message repeated 1 times
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:20:09 2009 Blocked incoming UDP packet from 64.46.16.166:21687 to 174.115.165.90:21687
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:19:44 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <-> 174.115.165.90:59628 <-> 192.168.0.197:59628 UDP timeout:0 'Teredo'
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:19:20 2009 Blocked incoming UDP packet from 64.46.16.166:21687 to 174.115.165.90:21687
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:19:11 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <-> 174.115.165.90:59628 <-> 192.168.0.197:59628 UDP timeout:0 'Teredo'
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:18:05 2009 Above message repeated 2 times
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:18:04 2009 Blocked incoming UDP packet from 64.46.16.166:21687 to 174.115.165.90:21687
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:17:33 2009 Above message repeated 1 times
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:17:20 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <-> 174.115.165.90:59628 <-> 192.168.0.197:59628 UDP timeout:0 'Teredo'
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:16:37 2009 Above message repeated 1 times
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:16:04 2009 Blocked incoming UDP packet from 64.46.16.166:21687 to 174.115.165.90:21687
[INFO] Wed Sep 16 21:15:57 2009 UPnP renew entry 255.255.255.255 <->
-
Your log contains no info on 'blocked' http pages. So no help from the log.
How's your firewall setting on the client PC?
-
for firewall i use AVG 8.5 full version which includes resident shield. I've had this protection on for a number of years though and the problem only occured when upgrading to 1.32na. I ran out of ideas on what could be wrong.
-
I'm only a potential buyer of this router, but I'm already taken aback by many many complaints over D-link firmware issues. It sounds like this company puts out new things without thoroughly testing them. That's a great way to sink a company's reputation and turn off customers. I am not goinmg to buy one till the mess clears up.
-
I'm only a potential buyer of this router, but I'm already taken aback by many many complaints over D-link firmware issues. It sounds like this company puts out new things without thoroughly testing them. That's a great way to sink a company's reputation and turn off customers. I am not goinmg to buy one till the mess clears up.
Well, my experience is quite good with the product. You're only seeing a tiny piece of hundreds of thousands sold devices.If you check other brands' help-forums you will see that they also have issues with hardware and firmware/confuguration issues. OK, so some do not get the right attention from the official customer service departments. Show me a brand where that does not happen.
But that's only my 50 cents. Just saying these forums represent complaints, nobody bothers to write a raving review on a board like this.
-
Anybody have any news on when we can be expecting a final firmware update to finalized n spec?
-
Anybody have any news on when we can be expecting a final firmware update to finalized n spec?
It could be a possibility that there will not be a special new firmware for the N specs. The already present draft V2 for these models/hardware was made final without any changes (as far as I've read the final specs). The additional N specs (600 mbps) do not apply to this hardware. So I do not think there will be any noticeable changes in the firmware.
-
Edd do you know if D-link are going to be discontinuing the draft-n routers soon as it was finalized in sept? I havent read ne news for any new products with the final spec which i find surprising since its now December.
-
Most of the time new hardware will be release in January.
-
There seems to be some hint that maybe using the config file is not a good idea. Maybe these problems are not related to the lower-level network processing of the router but simply a bad mapping of an older config file into the new firmware (which would still be a bug). Just pure speculation.
That's a good point.
I used to have a WRT54G with DD-WRT firmware (sigh), but it was too slow (wireless B/G). Anyway, one of the things they always said in the DD-WRT forum was to NOT trust your old config files. You had to re-enter everything manually again after each update...end of story. Possibly this is what's plaguing many of you. I've still got 1.21, so I'm waiting before updating.
Cheers!
-
Edd do you know if D-link are going to be discontinuing the draft-n routers soon as it was finalized in sept? I havent read ne news for any new products with the final spec which i find surprising since its now December.
I really don't know. But I think theres a chance they are working on full N spec routers. Looking at the time the DIR655 has been on the market is should be close to EOL
-
...
With 1.21 you're probably one of the lucky few that had no issues...
I have stuck with 1.21 for several months due to the complaints about 1.3x. And no ability to go backward if it is not stable (for me). I think I have A2 hardware.
1.21 has been very stable for me, but I do not use sharepoint. I'm not sure what 1.3x would improve for me, but at this point I am in the "don't fix it, if it isn't broken" mode.
Normally, I would be running the latest firmware.
@fd20092009 - The DIR-655 has been the best router I have ever owned. In general, the majority of people are happy with it (check Amazon and Newegg ratings). I have just stuck with firmware v1.21. I think there are several people who have upgraded to 1.3x w/o issue. The only thing holding me back is the inability to go backwards.
-
Newsflash: Since the ratification of the N specs all draft N models have been declared N certified. So no new firmware especially for getting the N certified label ;)
-
H/W A3 w. 1.32 NA.
No problems with 1.21 f/w. Huge problems w. 1.32NA. I am checking this site everyday now for a f/w upgrade. I ditto the comment about updates!
I hate to post a "me too" comment for my first post, but this might help someone else or maybe D-Link tech support. I had firmware issues above under A3 and it still exists under A4. I was on the line with tech support for quite some time because I'd have to keep rebooting my router every 1-2 weeks and was convinced that it was simply an A3 router with bad memory. After finally convincing the upper level tech support that there's no setting that can prevent me from logging into the config page on three separate devices (wired, wireless, firewall on/off) while my LAN works great, they sent me an A4 router with 1.31NA.
Thinking that the problem was fixed, I upgraded to 1.32NA right away and the mysterious "out to lunch" issue came back. No internet, no config page. I downgraded to 1.31NA, and 10 days later the same thing. I did the "big research project" here and found the same issues are in fact very common; so I'm using the latest beta now. We shall see.
I hope D-Link fixes this; it was a great product with 1.21 and I've recommended D-Link to so many others. I used to run a Linux server instead of a router a few years ago when I swapped it out for a DGL-4100 that finally died after 3 years. I'm tempted to go back to the Linux machine now...it sucks more power but was far less buggy. :D
Thanks!
-
I also was stupid enough to upgrade the firmware! I LOVED my DIR-655 till this 1.32NA crap! I keep getting wired and wireless disconnects that makes me reboot the router to solve.
Why cant we downgrade to 1.21 again? I just dont get that. You cant physically change anything in the router, so we should be able to clear the EEprom and restart with 1.21 ? I had some disconnect issues with that one, especially when using a PS3 and trying to connect with laptops at the same time, but nothing remotely as horrid as the 1.32NA has given me.
I actually called some of the people I recommended this too and made sure they did not upgrade the firmware no matter what problems they are having! Would be too much tech support on my end!
Mike
-
I LOVED my DIR-655 till this 1.32NA $h!t I keep getting wired and wireless disconnects that makes me reboot the router to solve.
Why cant we downgrade to 1.21 again? I just dont get that. You cant physically change anything in the router, so we should be able to clear the EEprom and restart with 1.21 ?
Amen. I don't get the downgrade either.
I tried to go buy a new one with 1.21 and was going to return my 1.32 one (which is still in mint condition aside from the lame-a$$ firmware) -- a little "swap-a-roo" if you will, but the damn employee checked the serial numbers on the box and the DIR-655 and saw they didn't match. UGH. I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!
-
I also was stupid enough to upgrade the firmware! I LOVED my DIR-655 till this 1.32NA ****! I keep getting wired and wireless disconnects that makes me reboot the router to solve.
Why cant we downgrade to 1.21 again? I just dont get that. You cant physically change anything in the router, so we should be able to clear the EEprom and restart with 1.21 ? I had some disconnect issues with that one, especially when using a PS3 and trying to connect with laptops at the same time, but nothing remotely as horrid as the 1.32NA has given me.
I actually called some of the people I recommended this too and made sure they did not upgrade the firmware no matter what problems they are having! Would be too much tech support on my end!
Mike
Can we expect an experimental report soon from you, trying to erase the chip? There are ways to do it you know. Though I would be curious how you get the kernel in again. ;)
-
Changes are made by firmware 1.3x during the flash process that are NOT undone by firmware 1.2x. 1.2x was not written with 1.3x in mind so you can't go back. If you managed to actually flash to 1.2x after going to 1.3x you would end up with a bricked router, thus D-Link has blocked you from doing it. If you are determined I suppose you could find a way to do it, brick your router that is. D-Link would have to re-write 1.2x so you could go back. Or write new code to fix the problems with 1.32na. They don't seem to be inclined to do either so you'll just have to live with a router that isn't a router anymore.
-
I also was stupid enough to upgrade the firmware! I LOVED my DIR-655 till this 1.32NA ****! I keep getting wired and wireless disconnects that makes me reboot the router to solve.
Why cant we downgrade to 1.21 again? I just dont get that. You cant physically change anything in the router, so we should be able to clear the EEprom and restart with 1.21 ? I had some disconnect issues with that one, especially when using a PS3 and trying to connect with laptops at the same time, but nothing remotely as horrid as the 1.32NA has given me.
I actually called some of the people I recommended this too and made sure they did not upgrade the firmware no matter what problems they are having! Would be too much tech support on my end!
Mike
What he said. Funny, I used to tout my 655 to other people and strongly recommend it. Like an idiot, I upgraded for 1.32NA with no real problems needing fixing. It's my own fault, but I hold D-Link responsible too for releases that are buggy and MORE IMPORTANTLY for not leaving a backward migration path. I will never buy another D-Link product again.
-
Have any of you tried the beta that was after 132NA?
-
Be patient. New firmware will be out soon I think.
-
Why cant we downgrade to 1.21 again? I just dont get that. You cant physically change anything in the router, so we should be able to clear the EEprom and restart with 1.21 ?
Many have asked "Why can't we downgrade?" A downgrade is not impossible, it just requires more effort on the part of the engineering staff to figure out. The explanation is a bit technical, but here it is for anyone who cares.
The router's flash memory is divided into two arbitrarily sized logical regions. The first, smaller of the two regions is called the boot block. The second region is called the application block. The arbitrary partition between these two regions is decided on when the firmware is designed and compiled.
The boot block contains the code that the router begins executing when it wakes up from a power-on reset. The microprocessor in the router is obligated by hardware to always begin execution at the beginning of the boot block no matter what. The boot block code is responsible for performing several start-up tasks before eventually jumping to the hard-coded address of the application block which begins at the end of the boot block.
The application block performs most of the functions of the router, and is designed to be replaced by new application code during an upgrade. The boot block code handles the upgrading process and is designed to never be overwritten or upgraded itself. This protects the router from bricking in case power is lost during an upgrade. The boot block is always there and always checks to see if a valid application block is present before jumping to it. Thus the boot block can always recover from a botched upgrade.
So now, why can't we downgrade? Well, we could, but a kink was introduced in the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3. It seems the application grew so large that there was no room to fit the next upgrade into the space partitioned to the application block up to this time. What to do? They went ahead and squeezed the boot block down to make room for a larger application block. This requires re-writing the boot block to point to the new partition address where the new application block starts.
So what happens when you try to downgrade from 1.3 to 1.2? The 1.2 code gets loaded into a lower starting address than it was designed to run at, and it wont execute there when the boot block eventually jumps to it. None of the pre-1.3 upgrades are designed to re-flash the boot block back to the way it was, so you can't go back just like that. The boot/application partition has been moved.
So is it impossible to go back to 1.2? No it isn't, but "D-Link" would have to release a down-grader that would include restoring the boot block to the way it was.
Why won't they do this? Well it's very risky. Perhaps nearly as risky as it was to release 1.3 that rewrote the boot block. If they release a new boot block re-writer to downgrade, they risk a new truckload of bricked router complaints that they probably suffered with the 1.3 upgrade. Or maybe, they think that the fix to the 1.32 application code is just around the corner, just around the corner, just around the corner..... and why go through the trouble of making and testing a downgrading re-flasher?
They are probably gun-shy about releasing a fix for 1.32 until they know it's "right". Or maybe the space they gained by expanding the application block for 1.3 is already used up and they are trying to bum a few more bytes of space out of it. Or maybe the only guy that really knew the system well was canned and there's no time for someone new to figure out what to do. Or maybe the upgrade has reformatted the eeprom and going back means having to save and reload parameters and it's too complicated for some engineer to figure out in one sitting. Or maybe their engineering resources are just too strained with new products and the 655 is really taking a back seat. Who knows.
Downgrading to 1.2 is possible, it's just problematic. /shrug
-
And too risky for Joe Average (or, with more respect: the average home user).
There is always a way in computing/software. Question is: if such a tool were released, how many bricked routers does Dlink have to take in. Does kinda ruin your business model.
-
Be patient. New firmware will be out soon I think.
I think we've been nothing BUT patient. This s***ty firmware came out on 7/20/2009, it's now 5 days shy of SIX MONTHS...
-
I think we've been nothing BUT patient. This ****ty firmware came out on 7/20/2009, it's now 5 days shy of SIX MONTHS...
Actually the last beta firmware was released in November.
-
they are waiting for everyone to get tired and fed up to the point where they can the router and purchase another one. *sigh* I did and it happened to be the 825. Should have saved my money from both routers, since I paid premium for both. could have had a half decent enterprise AP or switch.
-
Actually the last beta firmware was released in November.
Given the problems I have with the OFFICIAL firmware, I think I'll stay away from some beta code that specifically says, on the page: http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=9246.0
"The following beta firmware is provided on a trial basis only and without any kind of warranty. It is heavily advised not to use this beta firmware for any critical purpose.
By downloading the beta firmware file, you expressly agree that the use of the firmware is at your own risk and discretion.
It is not supported through the normal support channels. All questions, comments and issues should be directed to this board."
riiiiiiight. I'll get right on that.
-
Many have asked "Why can't we downgrade?" A downgrade is not impossible, it just requires more effort on the part of the engineering staff to figure out. The explanation is a bit technical, but here it is for anyone who cares.
Well, in spite of everything else, I would really like to thank you for writing this explanation. It really helps to clarify things and I'm also glad you didn't talk down to us in doing so, and you also explained it in a way that anyone (with a modicum of computer knowledge) would understand. Kudos.
-
Given the problems I have with the OFFICIAL firmware, I think I'll stay away from some beta code that specifically says, on the page: http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=9246.0
"The following beta firmware is provided on a trial basis only and without any kind of warranty. It is heavily advised not to use this beta firmware for any critical purpose.
By downloading the beta firmware file, you expressly agree that the use of the firmware is at your own risk and discretion.
It is not supported through the normal support channels. All questions, comments and issues should be directed to this board."
riiiiiiight. I'll get right on that.
I would guess the majority of people who had DNS issues with 132NA had them resolved with the beta.
-
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=10470.0 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=10470.0)
-
Thanks davevt31. I was just coming in to post the link to the new firmware.
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=10470.0 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=10470.0)
-
Started a Feedback thread in the Beta Forum.
-
Downgrading to 1.2 is possible, it's just problematic. /shrug
The following is just for the curious to see what kind of effort might go into a downgrade hack.
I've been mulling it over. If I had to work out a downgrade hack to make 1.2 firmware work in a 1.3 upgraded router, here's the things I'd have to do:
1. Look at the 1.3 binary code to figure out where the application entry point is. (not too hard)
2.Take the 1.2 binary code and prepend a padding block just the right size so that when the 1.2 code is loaded by the 1.3 loader, the entry point of the 1.2 code is positioned at the same address it used to live at in a 1.2 system. (easy)
3. Insert a jump instruction at the beginning of my new padding block (the 1.3 entry point) to jump to the beginning of the 1.2 code. (easy)
4. Figure out what checksum algorithm the bootloader uses during POST to determine when a valid application block is present, and where in the application code that checksum is located. (medium hard. gonna guess it's crc32 and try the usual seed values, then try other methods if that isn't it)
5. Calculate a the new checksum for my padded 1.2 firmware and put it in at the right address. (easy if I did #4 right)
6. Upload my hacked 1.2 image into a 1.3 router.
7. Hope the 1.2 application code doesn't make any absolute reference to bootloader routines because the 1.2 app code is now running on a 1.3 bootloader and things wont be in the same place. (forget about it. Not worthwhile to continue if this is the case)
Oh and of course I have to decrypt the original bin file before I can work on it, and re-encrypt it after each attempt I make to get the padding and checksum right. D-link doesn't want their executable being scammed by a competitor making cloned hardware. Personally I would have taken the time to use at least an RC4 cipher to make it really hard on me. And what... the image is divided into blocks, each with it's own checksum? If not, I would have done that too.
ok bye
-
Dude I have already downgraded a 655 from 1.3x firmware.
I just wanted to see if it could be done but it IS very risky.
Then I flashed it back as I have no problems with my router.
-
Well, I was just thinking out loud based on other reverse engineering hacks I've done. They were for companies paying me to tweak their older products whose source code was lost. My approach may not be necessary in this case. I'm happy it works without it.
-
They are probably gun-shy about releasing a fix for 1.32 until they know it's "right". Or maybe the space they gained by expanding the application block for 1.3 is already used up and they are trying to bum a few more bytes of space out of it. Or maybe the only guy that really knew the system well was canned and there's no time for someone new to figure out what to do. Or maybe the upgrade has reformatted the eeprom and going back means having to save and reload parameters and it's too complicated for some engineer to figure out in one sitting. Or maybe their engineering resources are just too strained with new products and the 655 is really taking a back seat. Who knows.
Downgrading to 1.2 is possible, it's just problematic. /shrug
Thank you for the insight! Kudos.
1.32 works for me except that after flashing to it my two DIR-655 ended up with the same LAN MAC address "00-03-64-00-01-24". This seems to be a bug on D-link's part -- it weird but at lease another person experienced the same problem and posted about it on the dslreports.
I've tried upgrading one of the routers to the latest beta code but that didn't change the MAC. This is the only reason I want to downgrade -- to see if that will give me the old LAN MAC again.
And I don't know why D-link would run a forum but not properly staff it by at least posting progress they have on the routers, or release official words on the problems we receive. I can understand that they don't want to turn the forums into a tech support channel, but running a forum and keeping mouths shut frustrates their customers. I, for one, am likely not buying another D-link again after reading all the negative comments and seeing virtually no response from D-link. D-link, if you are actually here, it's time for you to act. You are driving your customers away.