Beware the Netgear DG632 for anything serious

I've used this router for a while as an initial router to connect to ADSL
which then passes traffic back to a bigger VPN type router.

Recently I've had trouble with them.

(I know these are cheap routers but to me they should be up to the job
requested).

One would pass certain traffic through but no HTTP traffic - this was when
it was used in a double NAT setup.

Another one which needed to run non-nat to act as the initial router on a BT
8 IP address setup would not work properly - all traffic had to be passed
through using DMZ. Also, I kept losing VPN connectivity.

This was replaced by a Allied Telesyn AR256E which has worked straight away
in the correct mode - i.e. DMZ is not set up.

The first one was replaced by an old Billion which handles the double NAT
fine.

Just thought I'd mention it - I know the DG632's are not produced anymore
but it might be worth being wary of the DG834 which is the replacement.

Kevin

On 16 Nov 2006, kevin bailey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Just thought I'd mention it - I know the DG632's are not produced anymore
>but it might be worth being wary of the DG834 which is the replacement.

Unless you've put the DG834 through exactly the same tests and found the
same problems, it is not exactly convincing (or even "useful") to suggest
a problem may be present (especially if these are "unusual" requirements).
Wonder how many others are likely to have wanted to do similar themselves
at home (or even at work)... Few, I'd think, BICBW. I've no great love
of Netgear kit (I use a DG814, with faulty ADSL modem section, as small
foot warmer, in winter months) but know people happy with the DG834.

NoNeedToKnow wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2006, kevin bailey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Just thought I'd mention it - I know the DG632's are not produced anymore
>>but it might be worth being wary of the DG834 which is the replacement.
>
> Unless you've put the DG834 through exactly the same tests and found the
> same problems, it is not exactly convincing (or even "useful") to suggest
> a problem may be present (especially if these are "unusual" requirements).
> Wonder how many others are likely to have wanted to do similar themselves
> at home (or even at work)... Few, I'd think, BICBW. I've no great love
> of Netgear kit (I use a DG814, with faulty ADSL modem section, as small
> foot warmer, in winter months) but know people happy with the DG834.

Good point - I suppose the reason the moan was strong is because I have had
problems with several Netgear routers recently - the FVG318 and the
FVG124G. Also, because the DG632 was failing to do such a simple job I
have lost faith in the whole range of Netgear stuff.

Kevin

"kevin bailey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ekfign$2vj$1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> NoNeedToKnow wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2006, kevin bailey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Just thought I'd mention it - I know the DG632's are not produced anymore
>>>but it might be worth being wary of the DG834 which is the replacement.
>>
>> Unless you've put the DG834 through exactly the same tests and found the
>> same problems, it is not exactly convincing (or even "useful") to suggest
>> a problem may be present (especially if these are "unusual"
>> requirements).
>> Wonder how many others are likely to have wanted to do similar themselves
>> at home (or even at work)... Few, I'd think, BICBW. I've no great love
>> of Netgear kit (I use a DG814, with faulty ADSL modem section, as small
>> foot warmer, in winter months) but know people happy with the DG834.
>
> Good point - I suppose the reason the moan was strong is because I have
> had
> problems with several Netgear routers recently - the FVG318 and the
> FVG124G. Also, because the DG632 was failing to do such a simple job I
> have lost faith in the whole range of Netgear stuff.

Yet I've had a FVS318 for over 4 yrs, never given a spot of trouble, a DG834
that also gave no problems, and a WGT624 that did have issues on the
wireless side.

P.