D-Link Forums

The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-865L => Topic started by: rlcronin on July 18, 2012, 11:08:40 AM

Title: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 18, 2012, 11:08:40 AM
Could someone (Furry?) summarize the differences between these two? Thanks ...
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: JavaLawyer on July 18, 2012, 11:37:12 AM
The primary difference between the DIR-857 and DIR-865L is network protocol and speed.  The DIR-857 relies on dual band wireless N, with a theoretical throughput of 900 MB/s (450 MB/s Wireless N + 450 MB/s Wireless N). The DIR-865L is also dual band, but uses Wireless N and the new wireless ac standard (still under review), resulting in a theoretical combined throughput of 1750 MB/s (1300 MB/s Wireless ac + 450 MB/s Wireless N).
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 18, 2012, 11:38:57 AM
DIR-857: In short -
Atheros AR9380 450Mb WiFi  
Multi-Media services
Next Gen QoS(Ya we know about the 2Mb Uplink issue.)  ::)
IPv6 services(IP, routing and firewall)  
Ubicom IP8000AU CPU

DIR-865L: In short - From reading the manual.
Up to 450Mb N Wifi on 2.4Ghz
Equipped with Broadcom’s 5G WiFi (802.11ac) chip - Up to 450Mb N  or 1300Mbps (Draft A/C) on 5Ghz, A/C is draft so it's still in development and hasn't fully been standardized as of yet. N was the same way.
Bridgeable WiFi connections. (Yes finally something to satisfy users bugging DLink about routers that don't bridge WiFi.)  ::)
Multi-Media services
Cloud services
Has same QoS UI as DIR-645 which differs from the rest of the DIR series routers. For an example: DIR-645 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=44869.0)
IPv6 services(IP, routing and firewall)
Unknown CPU at this time.


Will see who and what Mfrs will support the A/C Wifi on the client side.
So far I bought a Trendnet and a Asus adapters to upgrade to get 450Mb from my DIR-857. DLink has a DAP-1533 that seems to support 450Mb as well. No information on A/C support yet. I presume it's in the works some wheres.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: JavaLawyer on July 18, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
Will see who and what Mfrs will support the A/C Wifi on the client side.
So far I bout a Trendnet and a Asus adapters to upgrade to get 450Mb from my DIR-857. DLink has a DAP-1533 that seems to support 450Mb. No information on A/C support yet. I presume it's in the works some wheres.

This was a significant issue when the 5GHz Wireless N routers were first released. There were only a handful of manufacturers offering wireless network adapters that supported the new standard. I suspect we're in for the same wait with ac.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 18, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Agreed. I think everyone needs to be patient and eventually it will get filtered down. It's only been recently over the past year or two that N has become more used by the end user. I presume A/C will follow the same path, when everyone gets ready for it.  ::) Still, I wonder why Mfrs don't release client side support when they come out with the hosts all at the same time.  :-\
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: JavaLawyer on July 18, 2012, 11:47:47 AM
The one downside (if you want to call it that), is that when a new standard like "5GHz N" or "ac" is released, loyalists of a particular brand (like D-Link) have no choice but to purchase wireless network adapters from the few available competing brands that are first-to-market. Additionally, network adapters from a particular manufacturer are typically designed to optimize compatibility and communication with routers of the same brand.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 18, 2012, 08:06:08 PM
I see references to amplified WiFi in the 865. What is that exactly? Would I get better range on 2.4ghz with the 865 versus the 857? The 857 has better range than my old Linksys E4200 but it is still spotty in some places in my house.Enough so that I would consider the 865 if this amplifier function is a real improvement. Honestly I wish router manufacturers would use external antennas. I always had better luck with routers with them in my house.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 18, 2012, 10:35:15 PM
Could mean anything. Not sure if they are uppin the wattage on the out put for more range or not. I don't know any one who has one yet. Not sure if the FCC has opened up more out put or not, only time will tell or someone who gets one and tests it out.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: JavaLawyer on July 19, 2012, 05:34:26 AM
This is most likely not an apples-to-apples comparison, but you can compare the measured performance for the Netgear 900N vs. Netgear ac routers (which have been out for some time now) for a relative comparison of N 5GHz, N 2.4 GHz, and ac).  At the very least, this comparison can provide a good indicator of real-world performance metrics for the N vs. ac protocols.

Be mindful of the source of the reviews you read. Different testing labs use very different testing methods which often culminates in very different results. The more reviews you expose yourself to, the better your understanding will be of where the performance results "actually" lie.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: icemankent on July 20, 2012, 07:27:51 AM
I just checked the user manual for the 865L.
I like their new QoS setup.

I noticed, however that on "Internet Sessions", they do not show the priority/queue, unfortunately.
The DGL-4500 does, and it is tremendously helpful to see your QoS in "action".
I hope that D-Link adds that functionality to the Internet Sessions page.

I'll be first in line to try this new 865L out - hopefully soon.  :-)

I think this forum needs a new section to be created for the DIR-865L - rather than talking about it only here.
:-)
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 20, 2012, 07:41:36 AM
The 865s QoS is the same as the DIR-645s. I like it because they have speed option presets above 2mb for up and down links.

When the forum goes live, I believe it will be under the D-Link Cloud Routers section of the forum.  ;)
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 20, 2012, 07:18:20 PM
Could mean anything. Not sure if they are uppin the wattage on the out put for more range or not. I don't know any one who has one yet. Not sure if the FCC has opened up more out put or not, only time will tell or someone who gets one and tests it out.
Oh well, guess I gotta order one and find out ...
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 20, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
We are waiting with baited breathe.  ;D
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 01:03:42 PM
The DIR-865 is in the house. In a nonscientific semi-subjective survey of the 2.4Hz WIFI signal strength in various locations in my house (as measured by the WiFi Analyzer app on my Galaxy S3), I can report that in most locations the signal strength does seem somewhat improved over the readings I got from the DIR-857. Between 10-20% better depending on location. My most problematic location (2.5 floors up in an attic room, away from the stairwell leading downstairs) stayed the same (-75 dbm on average, which is still usable and no worse than the 857). If I step into the part of the room that has a direct view of the stairwell, the signal jumps up significantly. The signal strength on the 2nd floor is way better than with the 857. All in all, I guess I'll keep it. The UI is more like my old DIR-655. In particular, whereas the 857 seemed to reboot every time I made the slightest change to anything, the 865 only reboots for earth-shattering changes (e.g. the IP address, a new password, etc.). That's appreciated. As to the 5G signal levels, they are pathetic as compared to the 2.4G levels, but since I haven't really used 5G much yet, I don't have a good feeling for whether they are better or worse than what the 857 puts out. I've got a lot more exploring to do, so consider this an extremely preliminary report.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 24, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
How interesting...

Remember that most recommended wireless configurations is to have the host router on the same floor or level or central in the building so that there is good coverage should there be floors below or above.

5Ghz is best in line of side or maybe one wall away between the host router and client.
What is the highest wifi connection speed that your devices support?

Does the 865 have a reboot later option? The 857 has this as well and even though you make changes, it should offer a reboot later option.

Post pics of any different UI sections that are not seen on the 857 or other routers if you can. The UI for the QoS should be like the 645 from what the manual says. Can you confirm?

If you can, do some file xfer testing, same room, wired and wireless, if you have time. Last test I did was with 1Gb and 4Gb files. If you have time.

Thanks for the feedback.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
The router has to be next to my cable modem which is on the first floor. There are 2 floors above and one (basement) below. Signal is excellent on first floor, very good in basement and 2nd floor. Good on 3rd floor except behind a wall with no direct view to the stairwell leading down (and even in those spots its no worse than the 857, about -75 dbm on average). Most of the devices in that room are connected to the network over a 500 megabit powerline ethernet arrangement. The wiring to that room is relatively new so I get very good throughput (350 megabits on average). The only WIFI I use up there is on portable devices (phones and tablets) and the 865 delivers adequate signal and throughput to them for the most part. The 857 signal was definitely weaker.

This is an old house (circa 1965) with lots of separate rooms behind sheetrock walls. Almost no line-of-sight-to-the-router from any of them. At the moment we've only got a few devices that we're using on 802.11n. I used to have quite a few more that talked over wireless bridges, but I mostly replaced those with powerline ethernet. Pretty much all I have left using wireless is phones, tablets and  one laptop. I believe all are dual band capable, but I think only the laptop supports 300 megabits. So yes, the 865 is overkill for the moment. I was mostly interested in the promise of better signal strength for the portable devices and that seems to have come to pass.

Yes, there is a reboot later option. Thankfully its not needed very often as most changes seem to be able to be applied on-the-fly. The 857 wanted to reboot after nearly every little change I made.

The QOS UI can be seen here:

http://goo.gl/MkE0V (http://goo.gl/MkE0V)

Looks nice, although it is not clear why I would need to use it. I have 60 megabits down and 8 megabits up and rarely have any bandwidth conflicts. I've left QOS off for now.

I'll try some transfers over the coming days and report back.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 24, 2012, 02:23:32 PM
Thanks for the feedback and pic. Ya, it's the same as the 645s QoS option. At least these 2 routers offer up higher Up and Downlink speeds selections. I would be interesting to see if it works on your 60/8 ISP connection since the other DIR series seem to have this cap at 2Mb Up that people are talking about.

If it works out, maybe use it as your main host router and turn the 857 into an AP upstairs.  ;)

Keep us posted and again, thanks for the feedback.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:17:56 PM
Methinks it is time for the 865 to have its own forum. I have found a glitch. I use Open DNS (I have configured the two Open DNS resolvers as hardcoded DNS server addresses on the Internet page). If I have DNS relay on as well, then all works fine. If I turn DNS relay off and disable/re-enable the LAN adapter on a PC (to force it to renew its info from the DHCP server) then DNS stops working altogether. Turning DNS relay back on solves the problem. This may be related, but I noticed that with DNS relay off, when I had the PC renew its info from the DHCP server and did an ipconfig /all, I noticed that it had *4* DNS servers listed, the first two from Open DNS and the second two from my ISP. I do not want to uise my ISP's DNS servers at all. How come I am getting them assigned? This didn't happen on the 857 ...
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 24, 2012, 08:20:47 PM
Did you ipconfig /flushdns?

I've asked for one to be created.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Thanks for the feedback and pic. Ya, it's the same as the 645s QoS option. At least these 2 routers offer up higher Up and Downlink speeds selections. I would be interesting to see if it works on your 60/8 ISP connection since the other DIR series seem to have this cap at 2Mb Up that people are talking about.

If it works out, maybe use it as your main host router and turn the 857 into an AP upstairs.  ;)

Keep us posted and again, thanks for the feedback.
Oh and as regards QOS, I was going to try it but I wanted to type in my exact specs (60/8) and there didn't seem to be a way to do that. It only had certain presets. The closest I could come would be 50/10, but I didn't want to do that.

Also, re your comment about using the 857 as an AP, were you suggesting I use it in bridge mode, or connecting it to the powerline ethernet and using it as a pure AP? Its not immediately clear to me how either scenario would benefit me. Can you explain?
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 24, 2012, 08:27:15 PM

Oh and as regards QOS, I was going to try it but I wanted to type in my exact specs (60/8) and there didn't seem to be a way to do that. It only had certain presets. The closest I could come would be 50/10, but I didn't want to do that.
What is the next higher value above 60? Yes they only have presets so you need to try the preset value even if it's above 60, I think it's 100 isn't it?

Also, re your comment about using the 857 as an AP, were you suggesting I use it in bridge mode, or connecting it to the powerline ethernet and using it as a pure AP? Its not immediately clear to me how either scenario would benefit me. Can you explain? The 857 doesn't have a bridge mode so you'll need to run a wire for AP mode:
Turning a router into an AP. (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=40856.0)

--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:31:42 PM
It seems there may also be a UPnP issue. I can no longer get my Windows Home Server's remote access to work. If I shut it off and back on again, it seems to work for a while, but in less then 5 minutes I get a warning from the WHS connector that port forwarding via my router is not working. The WHS attempts to open the ports it needs by sending UPNP commands to the router. Those seem to work at first, but then it just stops.

I've tried to activate some more detaile logging information on the logs page, but that doesn't seem to work either. Sigh ... ah, life on the bleeding edge ... fun fun ...

Oh and while we're on the subject of bleeding edge, I also had an issue with my VOIP. I could not hear audio on an incoming call I got earlier this evening. We retried several times to no avail and gave up and reverted to cellphones. I am sure this is probably related to the SIP ALG. I have turned that off now, but have not yet had an opportunity to see if that helped. I'll have a co-worker call me in the morning to see if thats fixed. On the positive side, I've had to fiddle with that in the past as well (at least with every Dlink router I have had) so I am hopeful everything will be fine.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:32:44 PM
Did you ipconfig /flushdns?

I've asked for one to be created.

I rebooted. But perhaps an explicit flushdns might help. I'll try it ...
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 24, 2012, 08:33:25 PM
Setup DHCP reserved IP addresses for all devices ON the router.

It seems there may also be a UPnP issue. I can no longer get my Windows Home Server's remote access to work. If I shut it off and back on again, it seems to work for a while, but in less then 5 minutes I get a warning from the WHS connector that port forwarding via my router is not working. The WHS attempts to open the ports it needs by sending UPNP commands to the router. Those seem to work at first, but then it just stops.

I've tried to activate some more detaile logging information on the logs page, but that doesn't seem to work either. Sigh ... ah, life on the bleeding edge ... fun fun ...

Oh and while we're on the subject of bleeding edge, I also had an issue with my VOIP. I could not hear audio on an incoming call I got earlier this evening. We retried several times to no avail and gave up and reverted to cellphones. I am sure this is probably related to the SIP ALG. I have turned that off now, but have not yet had an opportunity to see if that helped. I'll have a co-worker call me in the morning to see if thats fixed. On the positive side, I've had to fiddle with that in the past as well (at least with every Dlink router I have had) so I am hopeful everything will be fine.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:34:22 PM
Ah well running a wire is not an option.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 24, 2012, 08:35:33 PM
How about with powerline?

Ah well running a wire is not an option.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:39:35 PM
I rebooted. But perhaps an explicit flushdns might help. I'll try it ...
--
bc
Nope, turned off DNS relay, did ipconfig /flushdns and ipconfig /renew, got 4 DNS servers again and nothing worked. Couldn't even get to www.google.com. Definitely an issue there ...
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:43:10 PM
How about with powerline?

Well of course I could connect the 857 via powerline and set it up as an AP. But then of course the bandwidth of the wireless devices that associate with it would be limited by the bandwidth of the powerline connection (which is 350 megabits on average so I guess it might be worthwhile). It would be interesting doing a speedtest when connected that way versus when connected to the 865 downstairs. I suspect it might be marginally better, but its probably not worth the bother ...
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 08:46:34 PM
Setup DHCP reserved IP addresses for all devices ON the router.

Not sure what you're getting at with this suggestion, but setting up reserved DHCP addresses for all my PC's and the Windows Home Server was one  of the first things I did. I always do that. It makes life so much easier. I still have the apparrent UPNP issue regardless though. I suppose I could manually setup port forwarding for the WHS, but isn't that what UPNP is for? It seems to be broken.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 09:20:05 PM
Here's another issue. I setup a login password on the router (the default of blank didn't seem too secure, even with Remote Administration off, I still would rather have a password). Well, setting it up works fine. From that point forward I have to provide the password to login. Until I reboot the router, that is. After which the password has reverted back to blank. D'oh!
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 09:25:20 PM
And another issue . The only computers that show up as valid choices on the Virtual Server "Computer Name" pulldown are the dynamic DHCP clients. Those that I have setup DHCP reservations for do not appear. Of course I can type them in manually (and I have, having setup HTTP and HTTPS to forward to my WHS, although I still can't seem to get connected to it, so I have to wonder if the forwarding I setup is actually working).

I am beginning to wonder about the completeness of the test plan for this firmware ;-)
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on July 24, 2012, 10:11:57 PM
Turns out the WHS issue is not UPNP after all. Its a loopback issue. Cannot connect to my local website on the WHS from inside the network. When I connected from my phone over LTE (with WIFI off), it did work.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on July 25, 2012, 11:52:41 AM
I would create a new thread here in the 857 forum for all suspect problems you find on the 865. Any product review or observations you can post in this thread. Both of these threads and any other 865 related posts will move to the new 865L forum when it's created.  ;)
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 02, 2012, 12:49:36 PM
For what its worth, I noticed a 1.01 firmware on the Dlink support site for the 865 so I flashed it. None of my issues were resolved. Even after restoring my settings, the admin password had been set back to blank (is the admin password not saved to the config?). The DNS relay issue persists (when DNS relay is not set, I end up with 4 DNS servers, 2 are the static OpenDNS ones I setup in the LAN configuration and 2 were dynamic ones obtained from my ISP). Finally, loopback connection to my Windows Home Server box still doesn't work (i.e. I can't connect to it by pointing to its homeserver.com address, I have to use its local LAN address, e.g. 192.168.x.x). None of these are showstoppers though, more annoyances than anything else.

Also even though the 865 does have a stronger WIFI signal than the 857, my "problematic" location continues to be a pain (its my media room way way upstairs). I cannot get my phone or tablet to get decent reception up there. I finally broke down and hauled my old DAP-1522 out of the closet and set it up an an AP (connected to the network over the 500 Mbps powerline ethernet that all the wired devices up there are connected to). Now I'm getting very strong signal and excellent throughput. Oh well ... at least the DIR-865's signal is stronger on the lower floors, so it was worth it for that reason.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 02, 2012, 01:17:37 PM
Great feed back. Glad you got an AP going. I believe any router would have range issues with multi floor buildings.

If DNS relay is enabled, what are the results if you leave it enabled and set DNS to automatic on the clients while just using ISP DNS?

I'll forward this on to DLink for review.

Again, any other problems you might see, please start a new thread with the DIR-865L title. Eventually it's own forum will be created and we'll move everything over there.

Thank you.

Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 04, 2012, 09:09:46 AM
With DNS relay enabled and using only my ISP's DNS (i.e. the primary and secondary DNS server addresses on the 865's Internet configuration page are blank), everything worked fine.

I tried the same scenario (that is, the p/s DNS addresses blank) with DNS relay NOT enabled and lo, that doesn't work either.

So it seems that it doesn't matter if you configure p/s DNS server addresses or not, if you uncheck DNS relay, DNS lookups fail all the time.

Since its a hard failure regardless of the server configuration, that should be easier for the firmware engineers to find and fix.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 04, 2012, 01:39:48 PM
I got response back from DLink and they said that they have not been able to reproduce these issues your seeing. They said they tried 3 different browsers and each one successfully saved passwords and the router retained it after a reboot.

They also check the DNS settings and said the DNS function is working as designed as expected. I'm wondering if there is a configuration issue on yours or something not being set correctly. I know that in normal default operation, DNS P/S fields are blank, DNS Relay is ON and the router will automatically get DNS addresses from the ISP modem. This will change if you input manual DNS addresses into the blank fields, then the router should use these specified addresses instead of the automatic detection of DNS.

I would presume that if the admin PW is not being set, I would try a different PC to manage the router as a test and see if the problem exhibits there, and if so, it's possible the router could be at fault and needs to be RMAd to DLink for review. I would at least call and talk to Level 2 support and get some help.

Maybe someone can review your router settings with you using Link> teamviewer (http://www.teamviewer.com) if your interested. Its safe and secure.

Thanks for all the feed back and keep us posted.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 05, 2012, 08:12:20 AM
Regarding the password issue. The password is not lost after a simple reboot. It is lost if you restore the settings from a file. To recreate, login to the router and setup an administrative password. Save the configuration to disk. Log out. Log back in using the new password to verify it works, Then restore the saved configuration from disk. After the router reboots, when I try to log back in with the very same password that worked moments before I restored the configuration, I am told the password is invalid. Using a blank password works.

So I conclude that  the administrative password is either not being saved when the configuration is saved to disk, or else there's some issue with restoring it.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 05, 2012, 08:24:32 AM
So what your seeing now is different than what you posted in #29?
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 05, 2012, 08:35:30 AM
So what your seeing now is different than what you posted in #29?
With respect to the password? No. Same issue. The router admin password is not restored properly when settings are restored from a file.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 05, 2012, 08:47:07 AM
They also check the DNS settings and said the DNS function is working as designed as expected.
Regarding the DNS issue, just to be certain we're comparing apples to apples here, can you verify that when they checked into this, they had a DHCP connection to their ISP, had alternate DNS servers defined in the Primary and Secondary DNS servers fields of the Internet connection configuration page and had DNS relay enabled in Network setup? Here are pictures of my Internet connection page and my Network page:

http://goo.gl/3NUGo (http://goo.gl/3NUGo)
http://goo.gl/1oqqI (http://goo.gl/1oqqI)

With this configuration, I end up with 4 DNS servers defined when I do ipconfig/all. The first two are the ones I had in the primary and secondary DNS server fields and the last two are my ISP's servers. It should only be the first two.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 05, 2012, 09:17:01 AM
You said in post #29 that upon rebooting the router that the Admin PW is not saved. Is this a normal reboot or a reboot after the configuration file has been loaded? Just trying to clarify here.

With respect to the password? No. Same issue. The router admin password is not restored properly when settings are restored from a file.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 05, 2012, 09:19:56 AM
Can you post a capture of your Status/WAN section page when you are using manual DNS and post a picture of the CMD box of the results of the IPCONFIG /ALL listing the 4 DNS addresses? The routers IP configuration is irrelevant here.

Regarding the DNS issue, just to be certain we're comparing apples to apples here, can you verify that when they checked into this, they had a DHCP connection to their ISP, had alternate DNS servers defined in the Primary and Secondary DNS servers fields of the Internet connection configuration page and had DNS relay enabled in Network setup? Here are pictures of my Internet connection page and my Network page:

http://goo.gl/3NUGo (http://goo.gl/3NUGo)
http://goo.gl/1oqqI (http://goo.gl/1oqqI)

With this configuration, I end up with 4 DNS servers defined when I do ipconfig/all. The first two are the ones I had in the primary and secondary DNS server fields and the last two are my ISP's servers. It should only be the first two.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 06, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
You said in post #29 that upon rebooting the router that the Admin PW is not saved. Is this a normal reboot or a reboot after the configuration file has been loaded? Just trying to clarify here.

Sure, no problem. It's a reboot after restoring the configuration file.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 06, 2012, 04:55:32 PM
Can you post a capture of your Status/WAN section page when you are using manual DNS and post a picture of the CMD box of the results of the IPCONFIG /ALL listing the 4 DNS addresses? The routers IP configuration is irrelevant here.

Certainly, here's the IPCONFIG output for my ethernet adapter when the router has been configured without DNS relay checked:

http://goo.gl/f2YZU (http://goo.gl/f2YZU)

And here is a picture of the Status/WAN page:

http://goo.gl/kRmrJ (http://goo.gl/kRmrJ)

And here is the same when it has been configured with DNS relay checked:

http://goo.gl/HCuZv (http://goo.gl/HCuZv)

and

http://goo.gl/PUdJR (http://goo.gl/PUdJR)

You'll notice that although the IPCONFIG output is different for the two cases (the first showing the 4 DNS servers (the two I configured and two from my ISP) and the second showing only one server, the local address of the router), the WAN status page is identical in both cases (except for the amount of time it had been connected since I released and refreshed the DHCP address from my ISP).

When in the configuration with the 4 DNS servers, I cannot get *any* DNS queries to work. Ping commands from a Windows command prompt fail. Attempts to open any webpage fail.

Interestingly, though, I also tried using the System Check tool on the Router's TOOLS page and typed in www.google.com and it told me that www.google.com was alive, even though when I put www.google.com in as a web browser URL, the browser was unable to resolve it. I suspect Windows is freaked out about having been given the 4 DNS servers, whereas from the router's point of view, everything is OK.

I suspect that the DHCP server in the router is what is broken here.

When DNS relay is not enabled, it seems to be giving Windows all 4 addresses, the statically configured ones AND the dynamic ones from the ISP. If there are static DNS servers configured, it should give out those addresses to clients. If there are no static addresses configured it should give out the addresses from the ISP. It should never give out both sets.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 07, 2012, 08:15:01 AM
So final word is that the DIR-865L is working as designed. Dlink was able to test with there settings and your and they are able to ping DNS. They do get 4 DNS addresses as expected with DNS relay disabled.

What ISP Modem make and model do you have?
Any 3rd party security programs running, i.e. firewalls?
Also what browser are you using to manage the router? Try IE? There is some issues using FF.

Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 07, 2012, 06:49:41 PM
So final word is that the DIR-865L is working as designed. Dlink was able to test with there settings and your and they are able to ping DNS. They do get 4 DNS addresses as expected with DNS relay disabled.

What ISP Modem make and model do you have?
Any 3rd party security programs running, i.e. firewalls?
Also what browser are you using to manage the router? Try IE? There is some issues using FF.


It may be working as designed, but I am questioning whether the design is correct. If I configure static DNS servers, I want the router to hand out those addresses, and not the ones from my ISP. I've had 4 other Dlink routers (DGL-4100, DGL-4300, DIR-655 and DIR-857) and none of them behave the way the DIR-865L does. They all correctly only hand out the static DNS addresses.

This has nothing to do with my  ISP or modem, but I'll play along for now ... here's the information you requested.

The cable modem is an Arris TM802G.
I have an anti-virus package, nod32 from ESET (just the AV, not the firewall).
I generally used Chrome, but also tried IE9. Makes no difference.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 07, 2012, 07:17:37 PM
Well even though the other routers seemed to behave correctly while you had been using them, you'll have to remember that these new next gen routers, i.e. amplify and cloud routers are probably not designed like before and do have new HW and probably incorporate a different way of handling networking protocols so even though you have specified DNS, maybe having additional ISP DNS is being made available when the DNS Relay is turned off and it's just letting you know, your getting specified DNS along with the auto detected ISP DNS as well. From what they say, DLink says this is as designed and is working as expected for this model router. I was told the DIR-645 behaves similarly in the same way. I'll need to put mine online and check. Normally DNS Relay is on so generally most people don't use specified DNS accept for those more advanced tweeker like to do.  ::)

This maybe a designed in FW tuned for the home user or average user. Again, these are home user router devices.  ::)
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 07, 2012, 07:27:16 PM
Alright, now this is just plain weird. I did some more testing. Here's what I found.

I configured the router to not do DNS relay and I did not fill in the static DNS addresses (so that when a DHCP client requested an address, it should be given my ISP's DNS server addresses). Then I forced a DHCP renew on one of my PC's. Indeed, it got two DNS addresses pointing to my ISP's DNS servers as expected. However, I was unable to do any DNS lookups. nslookup told me I had an unknown server and all DNS lookups I had it try kept timing out. Ping could not ping anything by name. My browser could not get to any sites.

So, then I reconfigured the router to do DNS relay (again leaving the stastic DNS server fields blank). Forced a DHCP renew on the PC. Voila, everything worked again (as expected).

But *then* I got the idea to use the Windows network configuration dialogs to change the DNS server options for my nic to NOT get DNS server info dynamically. Rather, I put the very same two DNS server addresses from my ISP in there (the same two addresses that when previously handed out by the router when DNS relay was off, did not work). I then did ipconfig /release and ipconfig /renew. Now ipconfig /all reported the same values it had previously when things were not working, but NOW everything worked fine.

Huh?

To summarize, when DNS relay is off and the router gives my PC DNS server addresses, I cannot get DNS resolution to work (regardless of whether its giving the PC the ISP's servers, or both the static addresses and the ISP's servers (which I still maintain is incorrect, but now clearly not the root cause of the problem)). When DNS relay is on, everything works.

... and by the way, when DNS is failing, it is happening on all the devices on my network, not just my Windows PC's (e.g. my Linux-based work laptop, my wife's iPad and iPhone, my Nexus 7, and my Galaxy S3 all stop being able to resolve addresses). The second I turn DNS relay back on and the devices renew their DHCP address, everything works again.

So come on now, don't tell me this is working as designed!
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 07, 2012, 07:29:36 PM
Are you flushing DNS on the PCs after you change router settings?
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 07, 2012, 07:34:08 PM
Well even though the other routers seemed to behave correctly while you had been using them, you'll have to remember that these new next gen routers, i.e. amplify and cloud routers are probably not designed like before and do have new HW and probably incorporate a different way of handling networking protocols so even though you have specified DNS, maybe having additional ISP DNS is being made available when the DNS Relay is turned off and it's just letting you know, your getting specified DNS along with the auto detected ISP DNS as well. From what they say, DLink says this is as designed and is working as expected for this model router. I was told the DIR-645 behaves similarly in the same way. I'll need to put mine online and check. Normally DNS Relay is on so generally most people don't use specified DNS accept for those more advanced tweeker like to do.  ::)

This maybe a designed in FW tuned for the home user or average user. Again, these are home user router devices.  ::)
I agree it is possible that it was deliberately designed to hand out both sets of addresses. I'd love to know the rationale for that. Its counter intuitive. If I go to the trouble of specifying static addresses its because THOSE are the servers I want to use. I hate my ISP's crummy DNS servers. I want to use Open DNS and nothing else. I used to be able to do that. Can you verify that if I leave DNS relay on and fill in the primary and secondary DNS server addresses that the router itself is only using those? The status page seems to imply that since it only lists those servers. Or is it actually using all 4 and just not reporting that on the status page? If it *is* just using the static ones, why the difference between that and the no-DNS-relay case where it gives all 4 to the client?

I have also determined that it is not the fact that the router is giving out the 4 addresses that is causing the problem (see above). Something is broken in DNS relay. When it is off, I cannot get DNS resolution to work, period, regardless of what servers are handed out by the router.

Oh, and I suppose I ought to just use DNS relay and forget about the fact that the no-DNS-relay case is broken (and I may well do that if this continues to be an exercise in me beating my head against the wall trying to convince Dlink to fix a problem with a feature that apparently nobody but me cares about), but really, any responsible programmer should WANT to fix this, regardless of whether its just one annoying customer who's complaining. I'm a programmer and that's the attitude I bring to *my* job, Dlink engineers ought to as well ;-)
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 07, 2012, 07:35:07 PM
Are you flushing DNS on the PCs after you change router settings?
Yep. I do ipconfig /release, ipconfig /flushdns and ipconfig /renew after reconfiguring the router settings.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 08, 2012, 07:51:01 AM
I believe that if DNS relay is OFF, that you have to to input DNS addresses into Windows networking properties to tell Windows what DNS to use since the router is no longer the proxy for DNS.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 08, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
I believe that if DNS relay is OFF, that you have to to input DNS addresses into Windows networking properties to tell Windows what DNS to use since the router is no longer the proxy for DNS.
Except that with every other DLINK router I have used, when DNS relay is off and static DNS addresses are configured, it doles them out with the DHCP response. The 865 seems to be trying to do that (because when you do the IPCONFIG /ALL, the DNS server addresses do appear in the output (whether that be the dynamic ones from the ISP or the static ones and the dynamic ones)), but lookups simply do not work. I have to believe that Windows launches the DNS query and that somehow, when it hits the router, the router is doing something that prevents it from working (since they time out, I'd suspect it is not forwarding them onto the WAN?).
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 08, 2012, 01:33:48 PM
I'll put my 645 online tonight and see if I an reproduce this. Might not be the same however they said it was similar.

Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 08, 2012, 01:36:34 PM
I'll put my 645 online tonight and see if I an reproduce this. Might not be the same however they said it was similar.


Note I modified my previous post. You seem to *always* be there, you answer my posts so quickly! :-)
Maybe I should get them right the first time and rely less on the MODIFY function.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 08, 2012, 01:41:03 PM
 ;D

Possibly. If you have an clear and open pipe to the 865 and it's configured well, it should be as DLink told me they are exhibiting expected behavior.

There another 865 at a store with a return policy up here? Might try another if there is one available.

I'll have DLink check this again and see what they say. I'll have a look with my 857 and 645 tonight and see if I get the same thing or not.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 08, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
I tested a DIR-645 and a 857 returned the following:
DIR-645 - DNS Relay OFF and specified DNS returned 4 DNS addresses, NSLookup was successful.
DIR-645 - DNS Relay ON and specified DNS returned routers IP address, NSLookup was unknown.

DIR-857 - DNS Relay OFF and specified DNS returned 2 DNS addresses, NSLookup was successful.
DIR-857 - DNS Relay ON and specified DNS returned routers ISP address, NSLookup was successful.

NSLookup ALL was used.
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 09, 2012, 09:10:29 AM
I tested a DIR-645 and a 857 returned the following:
DIR-645 - DNS Relay OFF and specified DNS returned 4 DNS addresses, NSLookup was successful.
DIR-645 - DNS Relay ON and specified DNS returned routers IP address, NSLookup was unknown.

DIR-857 - DNS Relay OFF and specified DNS returned 2 DNS addresses, NSLookup was successful.
DIR-857 - DNS Relay ON and specified DNS returned routers ISP address, NSLookup was successful.

NSLookup ALL was used.
Well, I'm stumped.

Do you not have an 865? I have to wonder if you'd see what I am seeing if you tried it with an 865.

Also, for what its worth, I change my log level to "Information" and rebooted the router just to see what the log entries are as its coming up. The very first message I see in the log seems somewhat DNS-related. I'm wondering if you see it too ...

no servers found in /etc/resolv.conf, will retry

If you are, then I guess its nothing. If not, then maybe its a clue.
--
bc
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 09, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I don't have a 865. Since DLink told me the 645 as similar, I figured I'd test it since I do have that one.  ;)

When you changed the log level what configuration is the DNS set up for when you saw the No Servers Found log entry? DNS relay ON or OFF, DNS automatic or specified in Internet/Manual?

I have been looking for a 865 locally, not in stores here yet that I can find.

Also what NSLookup command are you using? Same as me?
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: FurryNutz on August 09, 2012, 09:19:26 AM
Wondering if you could build a spreadsheet of results vs the different DNS configurations vs NSLookup results. Might help see what each configuration is doing.  ::)
Title: Re: DIR-857 vs DIR-865
Post by: rlcronin on August 09, 2012, 10:35:24 AM
I rebooted with relay=on and relay=off and saw that log message in both cases (which makes me suspect its a red herring, but it would be interesting to know if you see it as well).

For nslookup, I just use "nslookup google.com".

For what its worth, since my previous post I decided to install wireshark to capture a packet trace of my LAN adapter during the case where DNS relay is off and when it is on. I am no wireshark expert, but I can clearly see in the trace that in the relay=off case, DNS queries are being launched off towards the static DNS addresses I have configured (as they are listed first in the ipconfig output) but that no response ever comes back. In the relay=on case, I see the request directed at 192.168.1.1 (the address of the router) and the response coming back immediately. If I manually configure the static DNS addresses in the TCP/IP properties for my LAN adapter and repeat the test, I see the request go out to those servers and the response comes back right away.

This is no different than what I found the other day, its just that now I have packet traces showing it happening.

To summarize:

With DNS relay off, when my LAN adapter is configured to obtain both its IP address and DNS server addresses from DHCP, the DNS requests get sent out from Windows, but no response is ever received.

With DNS relay still off, when my LAN adapter is configured to obtain just its IP address from DHCP and its DNS server addresses are statically configured, the DNS requests get sent out from Windows as before, but I *do* get responses.

I do not have time right now to put together a spreadsheet showing all this, but you shouldn't need one. It is a relatively simple thing to test.

In the INTERNET setup, configure two static DNS servers (use OpenDNS, 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220). In NETWORK setup, un-check DNS relay. Reboot the router to ensure the settings are in effect. In Windows, make sure your LAN adapter is configured to obtain both its IP address and its DNS server addresses dynamically. Open a command prompt and issue "ipconfig /release", "ipconfig /flushdns" and "ipconfig /renew" to force Windows to go to the router to get a new IP address and list of DNS servers. Issue "ipconfig /all" to verify the DNS server addresses are as you configured them in the router. Then try "nslookup google.com". For me, I get nothing but timeouts and no response is ever received.
--
bc