Any reason why a d-link router's firmware upgrade can't be used outside a specific country ?

Hi !

I have a D-Link DI-624 router, revision C. My firmware is 2.53, the
latest availiable on the Canadian D-Link site.

Since I am experiencing some problems between this router and the
DWL-G132 USB adapter (ex: unable to connect unless I reboot the
router), I searched the net for a possible solution.

While surfing on the US D-Link site (dlink.com), I found the existence
of a newer version of the firmware (2.70) for the same model/revision.
The same fw version can also be found on dlink.fr

I noticed that there is a mention on the US download page stating that
"This firmware is engineered for US products only; using this firmware
on a device outside of the USA will void your warranty and render the
device unusable".

I called to d-link (Canada) tech support (yes, I had spare time to
waste, really !) to be told that this is because foreign dsl standards
aren't the same as here - and was advised too to not use the USA
upgrade.

While I can "maybe" believe this to be true for Europeans systems, I
can hardly see a difference between USA and Canadian dsl
systems/standards.

But in fact, since my router WAN side can be configured for PPPoE, PPTP
for Europe and BigPondCable for Australia among others, why does it
specifically requires a Canadian firmware ?

In addition, I made a byte to byte compare of the Canadian version 2.53
and the US one and they match exactly. Why then the 2.70 version be
so unsuitable ? The d-link tech support guy never answered this : he
hooked up the phone ! :-(

And, if there is really an incompatibility somewhere, I guess can
always flash the 2.53 f/w again.


Any opinions ? Suggestions ? Advice ? Experiences ?

Thanks in advance.

Michel S. <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>I have a D-Link DI-624 router, revision C. My firmware is 2.53, the
>latest availiable on the Canadian D-Link site.

US Site:
http://support.dlink.com/products/vi...I%2D624%5FrevC

Canadian Site:
http://support.dlink.ca/ProductView....ID=219#drivers

>Since I am experiencing some problems between this router and the
>DWL-G132 USB adapter (ex: unable to connect unless I reboot the
>router), I searched the net for a possible solution.

It's possible because one of the changes in 2.70 is listed as
"improves performance" which is a catch all line for "we made a
zillion fixes that we don't want to admit needed fixing".

>I noticed that there is a mention on the US download page stating that
>"This firmware is engineered for US products only; using this firmware
>on a device outside of the USA will void your warranty and render the
>device unusable".

I can see how it will void the warranty, but it should not do anything
to the functionality of the router. The hardware is the same world
wide. There may be some contrivance in the firmware update proceedure
that refuses to upload new firmware if the country has changed. I've
never had this problem so I don't know. There's also a possiblity
that you may not be able to downgrade back to 2.53 if the 2.70
firmware fails. Again, I've never tried this, so I don't know.

>I called to d-link (Canada) tech support (yes, I had spare time to
>waste, really !) to be told that this is because foreign dsl standards
>aren't the same as here - and was advised too to not use the USA
>upgrade.
>But in fact, since my router WAN side can be configured for PPPoE, PPTP
>for Europe and BigPondCable for Australia among others, why does it
>specifically requires a Canadian firmware ?

Baloney. The PPPoE, PPPoA, and DHCP standards are similar enough
these days that unless your ISP's DSL system is truely ancient, it
should work. I couldn't determine your ISP from the article header.
Who's your ISP?

US WAN settings:
http://support.dlink.com/emulators/d..._wan_dhcp.html

Canadian WAN settings:
http://support.dlink.ca/KBID.asp?ArticleID=123

Well, the US page has P2PTP, which is missing from the Canadian page.
Both pages may be from older firmware so it's difficult to tell for
sure.

>In addition, I made a byte to byte compare of the Canadian version 2.53
>and the US one and they match exactly.

Good idea. That's what I was going to do next. Going through the
various pages of the online DI-624 emulator:
http://support.dlink.com/emulators/d.../h_wizard.html
I could find no place where it specified the country. It's the
DI-624+ that's intended for international distribution. See:
http://support.dlink.com
and select DI-624+ and it sends you to the various international
sites. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Canada and the US
"harmonized" their FCC/DoC intentional radiation standards years ago.
http://www.ce-mag.com/99ARG/Gubish31.html
Out of curiousity, does your Canadian DI-624 serial number sticker
have the FCC ID, DoC approval ID, or both?

>Why then the 2.70 version be
>so unsuitable ? The d-link tech support guy never answered this : he
>hooked up the phone ! :-(

You went over his knowledge threshold forcing him to think. That blew
a fuse somewhere. Don't worry. He'll recover to do it again to
someone else.

>And, if there is really an incompatibility somewhere, I guess can
>always flash the 2.53 f/w again.

Maybe. Some firmware installers (old Linksys WAP11) do not allow
revision downgrades. However, Google couldn't find anyone complaining
about this, so I guess you're safe. I would say that it's worth a try
if your ISP uses static IP, DHCP, or PPPoE. I'm not so sure if the
ISP uses something else (tunneling, PPPoA, etc).

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:33:38 -0400, Michel S. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>I have a D-Link DI-624 router, revision C. My firmware is 2.53, the
>latest availiable on the Canadian D-Link site.
>
>Since I am experiencing some problems between this router and the
>DWL-G132 USB adapter (ex: unable to connect unless I reboot the
>router), I searched the net for a possible solution.
>
>While surfing on the US D-Link site (dlink.com), I found the existence
>of a newer version of the firmware (2.70) for the same model/revision.
>The same fw version can also be found on dlink.fr
>
>I noticed that there is a mention on the US download page stating that
>"This firmware is engineered for US products only; using this firmware
>on a device outside of the USA will void your warranty and render the
>device unusable".
>
>I called to d-link (Canada) tech support (yes, I had spare time to
>waste, really !) to be told that this is because foreign dsl standards
>aren't the same as here - and was advised too to not use the USA
>upgrade.
>
>While I can "maybe" believe this to be true for Europeans systems, I
>can hardly see a difference between USA and Canadian dsl
>systems/standards.
>[SNIP]

The differences are in wireless frequencies and maximum transmit power
-- different countries have different wireless regulations. However,
the USA and Canada use the same frequencies, so there's no issue (other
than regulatory approval) in using USA firmware in Canada.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Channels>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Thanks for your answers.. See my comments inserted below.

Jeff Liebermann a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
> Michel S. <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>> I have a D-Link DI-624 router, revision C. My firmware is 2.53, the
>> latest availiable on the Canadian D-Link site.
>
> US Site:
> http://support.dlink.com/products/vi...I%2D624%5FrevC
>
> Canadian Site:
> http://support.dlink.ca/ProductView....ID=219#drivers
>

Is this what is called "supporting evidence" ? lol


>> I called to d-link (Canada) tech support (yes, I had spare time to
>> waste, really !) to be told that this is because foreign dsl standards
>> aren't the same as here - and was advised too to not use the USA
>> upgrade.
>
> Baloney.

This is what I expressed to the d-Link support guy, but in my own words
! ;-)


> The PPPoE, PPPoA, and DHCP standards are similar enough
> these days that unless your ISP's DSL system is truely ancient, it
> should work. I couldn't determine your ISP from the article header.
> Who's your ISP?

My ISP is a well established provider using PPPoE. ;o)

>
> US WAN settings:
> http://support.dlink.com/emulators/d..._wan_dhcp.html
>
> Canadian WAN settings:
> http://support.dlink.ca/KBID.asp?ArticleID=123
>
> Well, the US page has P2PTP, which is missing from the Canadian page.
> Both pages may be from older firmware so it's difficult to tell for
> sure.

The page on the canadian site is incorrect (in fact, I believe it's not
even from a DI-624 because of the missing "Wireless" button on the
left). My page is identical to the US site one.


>
>> In addition, I made a byte to byte compare of the Canadian version 2.53
>> and the US one and they match exactly.
>
> Good idea. That's what I was going to do next. Going through the
> various pages of the online DI-624 emulator:
> http://support.dlink.com/emulators/d.../h_wizard.html
> I could find no place where it specified the country.

I just did the same operation between the US 2.70 vs the France 2.70
versions, and they are different: the French one is 127Kb smaller.

Unfortunately, 2.70 is the only one availiable on the french site - I
wish I could make the same with 2.53.


> Also, to the best of my knowledge, Canada and the US
> "harmonized" their FCC/DoC intentional radiation standards years ago.
> http://www.ce-mag.com/99ARG/Gubish31.html
> Out of curiousity, does your Canadian DI-624 serial number sticker
> have the FCC ID, DoC approval ID, or both?
>

The sticker is identical to the following (the third on the page)
except for the number 0560 at the right of the CE logo (which is blank
on mine):

http://www.dlink.fr/?go=3M35LLL89o0Y...LZa4W0Fdq99A==

Does the missing number means it's missing an approval ?


>> Why then the 2.70 version be
>> so unsuitable ? The d-link tech support guy never answered this : he
>> hooked up the phone ! :-(
>
> You went over his knowledge threshold forcing him to think. That blew
> a fuse somewhere. Don't worry. He'll recover to do it again to
> someone else.

The sad part is that he will surely do it again.. :/

I had a very bad experience with that guy.. He was only providing
express "prefab" answers (ex: reinstall the drivers and call us back if
it doesn't work) looking like he was on a hurry to close the call.

I suspect that the broken line (hook up in the middle of a sentence)
was not accidental.


Thanks again !

Dans son message précédent, John Navas a écrit :
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:33:38 -0400, Michel S. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>> I have a D-Link DI-624 router, revision C. My firmware is 2.53, the
>> latest availiable on the Canadian D-Link site.
>>
>> Since I am experiencing some problems between this router and the
>> DWL-G132 USB adapter (ex: unable to connect unless I reboot the
>> router), I searched the net for a possible solution.
>>
>> While surfing on the US D-Link site (dlink.com), I found the existence
>> of a newer version of the firmware (2.70) for the same model/revision.
>> The same fw version can also be found on dlink.fr
>>
>> I noticed that there is a mention on the US download page stating that
>> "This firmware is engineered for US products only; using this firmware
>> on a device outside of the USA will void your warranty and render the
>> device unusable".
>>
>> I called to d-link (Canada) tech support (yes, I had spare time to
>> waste, really !) to be told that this is because foreign dsl standards
>> aren't the same as here - and was advised too to not use the USA
>> upgrade.
>>
>> While I can "maybe" believe this to be true for Europeans systems, I
>> can hardly see a difference between USA and Canadian dsl
>> systems/standards.
>> [SNIP]
>
> The differences are in wireless frequencies and maximum transmit power
> -- different countries have different wireless regulations. However,
> the USA and Canada use the same frequencies, so there's no issue (other
> than regulatory approval) in using USA firmware in Canada.
> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Channels>

Thanks for your input.

As I answered to Jeff, my unit bears the FCC and CE logos (among
others), but I wonder if a missing number besides the CE logo means a
missing approval (see my answer to Jeff for details).

If not, I guess I will try the US firmware - anyway, it hardly can be
worse than it is now !

Thanks again !

Michel S. <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>> US Site:
>> http://support.dlink.com/products/vi...I%2D624%5FrevC
>>
>> Canadian Site:
>> http://support.dlink.ca/ProductView....ID=219#drivers

>Is this what is called "supporting evidence" ? lol

Nope. Just a subtle hint that you should have posted the URL's. If
anyone is going to answer your question, they're going to need those
two URL's as a starting point. Might as well make it easy for them.
Incidentally, thanks for supplying the hardware details. Very few
people bother to do that.

>My ISP is a well established provider using PPPoE. ;o)

Well, there were some creative implimentation of PPPoE that required
updates to router firmware. I had a few old BEFW11s4 routers that
would not connect using PPPoE after some manner of PBI/SBC/at&t
upgrade. However, that was about 2 years ago, so I think it safe to
assume that it's fixed in both 2.53 and 2.70.

>> Out of curiousity, does your Canadian DI-624 serial number sticker
>> have the FCC ID, DoC approval ID, or both?

>The sticker is identical to the following (the third on the page)
>except for the number 0560 at the right of the CE logo (which is blank
>on mine):
>
>http://www.dlink.fr/?go=3M35LLL89o0Y...LZa4W0Fdq99A==
>
>Does the missing number means it's missing an approval ?

I have no idea what the 0560 after the CE means.

FCC ID page for the DI-624 rev C1: KA2DI624VC2
Is that the FCC ID number on your serial number tag?
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout =500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=257120&fcc_i d='KA2DI624VC2'
Unfortunately, clicking on anything on that page returns a "not found"
error message. Way to go FCC. Actually clicking on anything for any
device seems to return the "not found" error. Lovely, the web pile is
dead. Maybe later. Incidentally, try a search for KA2DI624 (without
the VC2) which returns 5 different models.
Search to find the manufacturer of an electronic product by using the
FCC data base.
www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/

>> You went over his knowledge threshold forcing him to think. That blew
>> a fuse somewhere. Don't worry. He'll recover to do it again to
>> someone else.

>The sad part is that he will surely do it again.. :/

Question: If Dlink had a 2nd line of support people with a clue, but
you may have to wait 30-60 minutes to talk to one of them, would you
wait?

Incidentally, you're the 2nd person who has reported in this newsgroup
that Dlink support hung up on them.

Let us know how it works for you.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann a émis l'idée suivante :
>
> I have no idea what the 0560 after the CE means.
>
> FCC ID page for the DI-624 rev C1: KA2DI624VC2
> Is that the FCC ID number on your serial number tag?

Exactly.

>
> Question: If Dlink had a 2nd line of support people with a clue, but
> you may have to wait 30-60 minutes to talk to one of them, would you
> wait?
>

I prefer to wait to get the right answer instead of being guided by a
clueless tech who will waste my time.

BTW, I did wait 30 minutes on line before my call was answered by that
"expert".

I can understand that they receive calls from newbies, people who don't
RTFM or even see a difference between a phone jack and a RJ-45 cable.
But they should know how to take care of more litterate customers -
like transferring them to an upper level support line.


> Incidentally, you're the 2nd person who has reported in this newsgroup
> that Dlink support hung up on them.
>

I'm not surprised..


> Let us know how it works for you.

Promised !

Michel S. <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann a émis l'idée suivante :
>> Question: If Dlink had a 2nd line of support people with a clue, but
>> you may have to wait 30-60 minutes to talk to one of them, would you
>> wait?

>I prefer to wait to get the right answer instead of being guided by a
>clueless tech who will waste my time.

Thanks. Part of the theory behind outsourcing support is that perhaps
90% of user questions revolve around basic setup and configuration
issues. These can easily be answered by a moderately competent
support person reading from a script. What surveys have shown is that
what customers really want are fast answers. Getting stuck on hold is
a great way of ruining a company's reputation. So, the emphasis is
on fast support (kinda like fast food). Unfortunately, this does
nothing for dealing with more complex issues, bugs, multi-vendor
compatibility problems, or those questions that require an experienced
support person.

>BTW, I did wait 30 minutes on line before my call was answered by that
>"expert".

So much for the fast answer theory. I didn't realize that DLink's
delay was that long.

>I can understand that they receive calls from newbies, people who don't
>RTFM or even see a difference between a phone jack and a RJ-45 cable.
>But they should know how to take care of more litterate customers -
>like transferring them to an upper level support line.

To the best of my limited knowledge, none of the bottom of the line
wireless vendors have a 2nd line of support beyond their outsourced
support pool. I might be wrong, but I often have to ask if there is
anyone else available that knows more about whatever inspired my call.
The usual answer is no. When the average wireless router has perhaps
$5-10 profit margin per unit, there's not much available to fund a
proper support structure.

The real problem with phone support is that the support people never
seem to get their hands dirty. It's not easy to answer questions if
the support person has never actually used the product, or is limited
to training consisting of a few minutes tinkering with the box. Even
the design engineers suffer somewhat from this limited experience. In
the case of bottom of the line wireless, the engineers work for the
OEM vendor, which is usually in China, Taiwan, etc.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558