Re: Linksys BEFSX41 v1 router locking up?

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:09:49 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10/10/2009 1:24 PM PT, Char Jackson typed:
>
>>> Which WRT54G routers can do that?
>>
>> The short answer is any WRT router that can run dd-wrt and has that
>> button on the front panel. I know that my WRT54GL units are included,
>> but I haven't done it since I usually leave my wireless enabled.
>
>Ah OK, so the key point is to look for Linksys routers that can do WRT.
>
>
>>> I still have wireless devices that can
>>> only do WEP. I only use wireless when I am using them. I unplug WAP11's
>>> power when not using them for security reasons.
>>
>> That works, kind of. Vulnerable, but not 24x7.
>
>Yeah, I do watch the logs, lights, MAC addresses (spoofable though), etc.
>
>
>>>> In dd-wrt, go to the Services tab, by default you'll be on the
>>>> Services sub-tab, (yes, I know the names are redundant), and about
>>>> halfway down you'll see the following:
>>>>
>>>> SES / AOSS / EZ-SETUP Button: Use this button for turning off radio
>>>> Enable Disable
>>> That will require passwords and don't want computer illiterates accesing
>>> the router settings.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by that.
>
>There are others who use the wireless in the house and they are not
>computer literates. I don't want them to log into the router to turn
>on/off the wireless stuff.

Oh, ok, so the physical button on the front of the router would be a
good thing.

>>> I guess I will still have to keep WAP11 even if I
>>> get a router with wireless feature (hard to find any router only device
>>> these days).
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by that, either. Why would you have to do that?
>
>Because I don't want the computer illiterates to break my router via
>software. I am OK with physical buttons (on/off switch) or with the
>power plug (currently doing this with an old Linksys WAP11).

Gotcha.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:13:36 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10/10/2009 1:43 PM PT, Char Jackson typed:
>
> > I wouldn't say "often", but no matter how often, you'd be free to
>> upgrade as slowly as you like.
>
>But I will still have to upgrade to fix the security issues. Are these
>firmwares always secured (no security holes)?

No security holes? EVER? Come on, now.
There are new exploits being dreamt up every day. Every now and then
one is targeted toward these kinds of devices, but generally they go
after the millions of Windows PC's out there, right? It shouldn't be
something that causes great concern, but that's your call.

>>>>> Doesn't using third party
>>>>> firmwares void router's warranty (e.g., what if one bricks a new router?)?
>>>> I assume it does void the warranty, but that has never been a concern
>>>> to me. I think the last time I used a manufacturer's warranty on an
>>>> electronic item was in about 1983, on a Yamaha car stereo. It just
>>>> seems a shame to use the stock firmware, so limited like it is.
>>> Really? I had stuff broke down within warranties like ASUS motherboard,
>>> an EVGA GeForce 7950 GT KO video card, Kingston memory, etc.
>>
>> I hope you didn't just jinx me. I suddenly feel a bit lucky.
>
>LOL! My computer friends teased me that I am unlucky with electronics.
>But then that is why I am a software quality assurance (SQA) tester. I
>break stuff easily. :/

Cool, I have friends who do that for a major telecom company.

>>>> And yes, it's possible to brick the unit, but in about 99% of the
>>>> cases it can be recovered. You won't need to know too much about that
>>>> until it happens to you.
>>> Cool. I hate it when things get bricked and you can't undo/reflash! I
>>> have done that before.
>>
>> You have options with tftp, telnet, and as a last resort and method
>> that nearly always works is the trusty old jtag method. There are
>> guides for the do-it-yourself types, like me, and I've also seen
>> services where you can send it off to be debricked. I'd much rather do
>> it myself.
>
>If the router is bricked, how can one tftp/telnet? I have no idea what
>jtag is (new to me). I assume it is this:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Test_Action_Group (hardware stuff).
>If so, then I am not a hardware person (can't even use a screw driver
>due to my multiple physical disabilites).

Even when bricked, they usually have about a 5-second window of
opportunity as they are being powered up. If that fails, there's a
special procedure where you connect a jtag cable to the circuit board,
connect the other end to the PC, and do some magic. Yes, it means
acquiring the jtag cable and opening up the router case, but it's
pretty rare to get to that point. Don't do firmware upgrades via
wireless and you'll be pretty much ok.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:14:56 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10/10/2009 1:27 PM PT, Char Jackson typed:
>
>>> Are there multiple WRT54 models? Or is GL the only one out there?
>>
>> Linksys is pretty shameless about capitalizing on the success of the
>> "WRT54G" model name, introducing at least 8 different versions of
>> routers over the years that had that exact name. Only the revision
>> number, in fine print, would be different. The WRT54GL is very similar
>> to the older WRT54G v4. The "L" in the model name indicates that it
>> runs Linux, which is very desirable.
>
>So it doesn't matter which WRT54 I get, it is good and usable by third
>party firmwares, right? If that is the case, then I know what my future
>one is going to be.

If you're asking me, it doesn't matter as long as it's a WRT54GL. I
don't think it's worth saving a few bucks and getting a WRT54G. The L
makes a difference.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:58:43 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10/10/2009 2:49 PM PT, Char Jackson typed:
>
>>>>> Are there multiple WRT54 models? Or is GL the only one out there?
>>>> Linksys is pretty shameless about capitalizing on the success of the
>>>> "WRT54G" model name, introducing at least 8 different versions of
>>>> routers over the years that had that exact name. Only the revision
>>>> number, in fine print, would be different. The WRT54GL is very similar
>>>> to the older WRT54G v4. The "L" in the model name indicates that it
>>>> runs Linux, which is very desirable.
>>> So it doesn't matter which WRT54 I get, it is good and usable by third
>>> party firmwares, right? If that is the case, then I know what my future
>>> one is going to be.
>>
>> If you're asking me, it doesn't matter as long as it's a WRT54GL. I
>> don't think it's worth saving a few bucks and getting a WRT54G. The L
>> makes a difference.
>
>Wait, what's L? How many different WRT54 are there?!

Skim back through this thread and I think you'll see that we keep
saying WRT54GL and you keep saying WRT54G.

Those are two different models, and I'm saying that the WRT54GL is
"better" for this purpose than the vanilla WRT54G.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:58:05 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10/10/2009 2:46 PM PT, Char Jackson typed:
>
>> No security holes? EVER? Come on, now.
>> There are new exploits being dreamt up every day. Every now and then
>> one is targeted toward these kinds of devices, but generally they go
>> after the millions of Windows PC's out there, right? It shouldn't be
>> something that causes great concern, but that's your call.
>
>Then, I have to upgrade the router's firmwares then to keep up.

IIRC, there are a few dd-wrt feature upgrades every year, but I can't
say I remember the last time there has been a security upgrade. There
probably has been one at some time, but I don't remember it. I would
say you generally aren't forced to upgrade unless you want to.

On 10/31/2009 02:12 PM, Ant sent:
> It has been over 20 days of no new lockups. Either I am having good luck
> (not declaring fixed/resolved yet) or I fixed it(?). Funny thing is that
> I did not reset my settings or downgrade! The only thing I changed was
> to enable MTU size to 1500.

Per chance, do you remember what it was before you changed it?

--
1PW

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:51:04 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10/31/2009 3:31 PM PT, 1PW typed:
>
>> On 10/31/2009 02:12 PM, Ant sent:
>>> It has been over 20 days of no new lockups. Either I am having good luck
>>> (not declaring fixed/resolved yet) or I fixed it(?). Funny thing is that
>>> I did not reset my settings or downgrade! The only thing I changed was
>>> to enable MTU size to 1500.
>>
>> Per chance, do you remember what it was before you changed it?
>
>It was disabled and no value? (greyed out). Router's internal help said
>"Select Disable toturn off MTU. Select Enable to manually set the MTU
>size.Enter an appropriate size; check with your ISP for more
>information. Manually setting the MTU is not required by all ISPs."
>
>If this indeed fixed the lockup issue, then that makes no sense? Maybe I
>am just being lucky. :P

I vaguely remember manually configuring a 1500 byte MTU on a very old
Linksys router way back in about 2002 or so. Seems like it was one of
the original BEFSR41's that were common in the day, but I could be
wrong about that. I think the default was 1480 or 1492, something like
that. My theory is that packets larger than that would naturally have
to be fragmented, which would be fine, until a large packet came along
with the Do Not Fragment bit set, and the firmware would freak out. In
my case, the issue was initially resolved by manually specifying the
1500 byte MTU, but later firmware versions fixed the entire behavior.

Maybe your case is somewhat similar, given the age of the BEFSX41.

Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:51:04 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2009 3:31 PM PT, 1PW typed:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2009 02:12 PM, Ant sent:
>>>> It has been over 20 days of no new lockups. Either I am having
>>>> good luck (not declaring fixed/resolved yet) or I fixed it(?).
>>>> Funny thing is that I did not reset my settings or downgrade! The
>>>> only thing I changed was to enable MTU size to 1500.
>>>
>>> Per chance, do you remember what it was before you changed it?
>>
>> It was disabled and no value? (greyed out). Router's internal help
>> said "Select Disable toturn off MTU. Select Enable to manually set
>> the MTU size.Enter an appropriate size; check with your ISP for more
>> information. Manually setting the MTU is not required by all ISPs."
>>
>> If this indeed fixed the lockup issue, then that makes no sense?
>> Maybe I am just being lucky. :P
>
> I vaguely remember manually configuring a 1500 byte MTU on a very old
> Linksys router way back in about 2002 or so. Seems like it was one of
> the original BEFSR41's that were common in the day, but I could be
> wrong about that. I think the default was 1480 or 1492, something like
> that. My theory is that packets larger than that would naturally have
> to be fragmented, which would be fine, until a large packet came along
> with the Do Not Fragment bit set, and the firmware would freak out. In
> my case, the issue was initially resolved by manually specifying the
> 1500 byte MTU, but later firmware versions fixed the entire behavior.
>
> Maybe your case is somewhat similar, given the age of the BEFSX41.

You might want to check out the freeware program SG TCPOptimizer found at
http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php

It can look at your link and give you actual feedback as to what your
particular
MTU values need to be set at in order to have the best link. I believe the
Mirror sites
listed there have the newest version available for downloading.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:51:50 -0500, "GlowingBlueMist"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:51:04 -0700, Ant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2009 3:31 PM PT, 1PW typed:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2009 02:12 PM, Ant sent:
>>>>> It has been over 20 days of no new lockups. Either I am having
>>>>> good luck (not declaring fixed/resolved yet) or I fixed it(?).
>>>>> Funny thing is that I did not reset my settings or downgrade! The
>>>>> only thing I changed was to enable MTU size to 1500.
>>>>
>>>> Per chance, do you remember what it was before you changed it?
>>>
>>> It was disabled and no value? (greyed out). Router's internal help
>>> said "Select Disable toturn off MTU. Select Enable to manually set
>>> the MTU size.Enter an appropriate size; check with your ISP for more
>>> information. Manually setting the MTU is not required by all ISPs."
>>>
>>> If this indeed fixed the lockup issue, then that makes no sense?
>>> Maybe I am just being lucky. :P
>>
>> I vaguely remember manually configuring a 1500 byte MTU on a very old
>> Linksys router way back in about 2002 or so. Seems like it was one of
>> the original BEFSR41's that were common in the day, but I could be
>> wrong about that. I think the default was 1480 or 1492, something like
>> that. My theory is that packets larger than that would naturally have
>> to be fragmented, which would be fine, until a large packet came along
>> with the Do Not Fragment bit set, and the firmware would freak out. In
>> my case, the issue was initially resolved by manually specifying the
>> 1500 byte MTU, but later firmware versions fixed the entire behavior.
>>
>> Maybe your case is somewhat similar, given the age of the BEFSX41.
>
>You might want to check out the freeware program SG TCPOptimizer found at
>http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php
>
>It can look at your link and give you actual feedback as to what your
>particular
>MTU values need to be set at in order to have the best link. I believe the
>Mirror sites
>listed there have the newest version available for downloading.
>

Nah, that was 6-8 years ago. Ancient history.

Ant wrote

> It was disabled and no value? (greyed out). Router's internal help said
> "Select Disable toturn off MTU. Select Enable to manually set the MTU
> size.Enter an appropriate size; check with your ISP for more
> information. Manually setting the MTU is not required by all ISPs."

I love routers ;-)
My MTU setting is disabled and has 1500 as greyed value.
I couldn't find a Wallwatcher backup but what I remember during my tests
is that the router dumped a Wallwatcher entry with MTU = 1500.
And if I look at the router Status page it said MTU = 1500.

In the manual you get the advice to set MTU = 1492 , but for some reason
I set it to 1500. My other linksys router also works with MTU = 1500.
I think Char Jackson has a good point with his idea of freaking out
firmware.
Maybe that's why I got back to 1500.
No lock-up problems with my router so I think you shouldn't downgrade for
a lower MTU value. You decide what your working MTU value is.