Warning DLink is crippling its DI-604, and maybe other products too!!!

Hi,

I have recently bought a DLink DI-604, and wanted to use it in my
network. Soon, I have bumped into the crippleware, that DLink has
introduced into this product: The subnet mask is stuck at
255.255.255.0. My business network uses a different subnet mask
255.0.0.0. I have tried to set it up, but it didn't allow me, giving me
an error message that the subnet mask must be 255.255.255.0 and
refusing to set it as I wanted. Without any choice I have accepted this
limited subnet mask 255.255.255.0, and had to reconfigure about 20
computers, and printers. I then added rules to the firewall. But after
the 5th rule, again it gave me an error message that no more rules can
be added. I spoke to the tech support of DLink, they called the
headquarter, and contacted me back, and said that the subnet mask is
255.255.255.0 because it is not a business product, but a home and
small office product, and that they will not do anything about it.
About the firewall rules the tech support told me that with his
firmware he can add more rules, and I should download the newer
firmware, which wasn't on site, so he mailed me a link to his private
FTP. Anyway his firmware didn't change anything. It is very annoying
that such a small parameter as a subnet mask is fixed by the
manufacturer, and without any warning on the box. It is even more
annoying when the tech support is claiming that the product does
exactly what it was planed to do. This is its design, and it can not be
returned or anything, because it works, as they have thought was right
with their twisted minds. I told the tech support that I have the
DI-524, and with it I can change the subnet mask to what I want, and
since it is a very similar product, it is very surprising to me that
this product subnet mask is not settable. Guess what was his reply ...
"With the new firmware the DI-524 subnet mask is also fixed, I guess
you have an old firmware on your DI-524". Lucky me. With no more help
from tech support, I thought it over myself, and looked at the
configuration web page source. I found the error message that I have
got written there in JavaScript. I figured out that the only thing that
prevents me from setting up the router as I want, is a small IF
statement in the JavaScript. I have figured out what this page is
supposed to send back, in order to set up the router, and I have sent
it back to the router myself, manually. It worked. I could set up the
subnet mask, to what ever I wanted, and I could add more rules to the
firewall. Although my success, I must emphasize that this is very
inconvenient. Moreover, from now on, whenever I would see a DLink
product, that is claiming to be something, I would be very suspicious,
because maybe it is a crippleware, just like the DI-604. I repeat -
this is not a bug, it is not a limitation that is forced by the nature
of the hardware, like not enough RAM, or CPU power etc, no!! It is a
crippleware = someone in DLink management has decided that their
products should suck, and then some JavaScript programmer wrote very
specific code lines in order to cripple the product.

In message <(E-Mail Removed) om>,
(E-Mail Removed) writes
>Hi,
>
> I have recently bought a DLink DI-604, and wanted to use it in my
>network. Soon, I have bumped into the crippleware, that DLink has
>introduced into this product: The subnet mask is stuck at
>255.255.255.0.

What is a DI-604? I have used several DSL-G604 routers and have never
had a problem changing the subnet mask.
--
Devs
"Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"

On 29 Sep 2006 16:46:07 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I have recently bought a DLink DI-604, and wanted to use it in my
> network. Soon, I have bumped into the crippleware, that DLink has
> introduced into this product: The subnet mask is stuck at
> 255.255.255.0. My business network uses a different subnet mask
> 255.0.0.0. I have tried to set it up, but it didn't allow me, giving me
> an error message that the subnet mask must be 255.255.255.0 and
> refusing to set it as I wanted.

It seems to me you should be able to mix computers with those different
net masks so long as the ones with the 255.255.255.0 mask don't need to
reach any hosts outside their own /24 subset of the /8 address space.

AFAIK all you need to internetwork is a common broadcast address for ARPs
to resolve the MACs, so for example:

Address: 192.0.0.0 11000000 .00000000.00000000.00000000
Netmask: 255.0.0.0 = 8 11111111 .00000000.00000000.00000000
Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000 .11111111.11111111.11111111

And

Address: 192.255.255.0 11000000.11111111.11111111 .00000000
Netmask: 255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000
Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000.11111111.11111111 .11111111

Should be able to talk to each other within the smaller /24 subnet.

Maybe someone will correct me if I'm out of order on this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 29 Sep 2006 16:46:07 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I have recently bought a DLink DI-604, and wanted to use it in my
>> network. Soon, I have bumped into the crippleware, that DLink has
>> introduced into this product: The subnet mask is stuck at
>> 255.255.255.0. My business network uses a different subnet mask
>> 255.0.0.0.
[snip]
> It seems to me you should be able to mix computers with those different
> net masks so long as the ones with the 255.255.255.0 mask don't need to
> reach any hosts outside their own /24 subset of the /8 address space.
>
> AFAIK all you need to internetwork is a common broadcast address for ARPs
> to resolve the MACs, so for example:

ARP requests are sent to the Ethernet broadcast address, so it doesn't
matter what the subnet mask in that respect. But a common broadcast address
should mean IP broadcasts work, and that is likely to be important.

> Address: 192.0.0.0 11000000 .00000000.00000000.00000000
> Netmask: 255.0.0.0 = 8 11111111 .00000000.00000000.00000000
> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000 .11111111.11111111.11111111
>
> And
>
> Address: 192.255.255.0 11000000.11111111.11111111 .00000000
> Netmask: 255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000
> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000.11111111.11111111 .11111111
>
> Should be able to talk to each other within the smaller /24 subnet.

But only machines with a 255.255.255.0 mask will be able to access the
Internet.

> Maybe someone will correct me if I'm out of order on this.

Well, your example was out of order due to the address ranges you chose,
10.0.0.0/8 and 10.255.255.0/24 would have been better . I have never tried
it, but I think it will work (albeit not for the reason you gave). On the
other hand, it seems of limited use because of the restriction I mentioned
above.

I think it is all a bit academic anyway: either the network is small enough
that /24 is OK, in which case there is no problem, or it is large enough
that such a router is not really appropriate.

Alex

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:38:19 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...

>> AFAIK all you need to internetwork is a common broadcast address for ARPs
>> to resolve the MACs, so for example:
>
> ARP requests are sent to the Ethernet broadcast address, so it doesn't
> matter what the subnet mask in that respect. But a common broadcast address
> should mean IP broadcasts work, and that is likely to be important.
>
>> Address: 192.0.0.0 11000000 .00000000.00000000.00000000
>> Netmask: 255.0.0.0 = 8 11111111 .00000000.00000000.00000000
>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000 .11111111.11111111.11111111
>>
>> And
>>
>> Address: 192.255.255.0 11000000.11111111.11111111 .00000000
>> Netmask: 255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000
>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000.11111111.11111111 .11111111
>>
>> Should be able to talk to each other within the smaller /24 subnet.
>
> But only machines with a 255.255.255.0 mask will be able to access the
> Internet.

Why on earth not? Just put any gateway hosts into the /24 netblock.

> but I think it will work (albeit not for the reason you gave). On the
> other hand, it seems of limited use because of the restriction I mentioned
> above.

Eh?

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:38:19 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>> AFAIK all you need to internetwork is a common broadcast address for
>>> ARPs to resolve the MACs, so for example:
>>
>> ARP requests are sent to the Ethernet broadcast address, so it doesn't
>> matter what the subnet mask in that respect. But a common broadcast
>> address should mean IP broadcasts work, and that is likely to be
>> important.
>>
>>> Address: 192.0.0.0 11000000 .00000000.00000000.00000000
>>> Netmask: 255.0.0.0 = 8 11111111 .00000000.00000000.00000000
>>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000 .11111111.11111111.11111111
>>>
>>> And
>>>
>>> Address: 192.255.255.0 11000000.11111111.11111111 .00000000
>>> Netmask: 255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000
>>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000.11111111.11111111 .11111111
>>>
>>> Should be able to talk to each other within the smaller /24 subnet.
>>
>> But only machines with a 255.255.255.0 mask will be able to access the
>> Internet.
>
> Why on earth not? Just put any gateway hosts into the /24 netblock.

I don't understand what you mean by "gateway hosts" - "hosts that need
access to the Internet"?

Anyway, what I wrote was nonsense - what I meant was that only machines with
(using your example) 192.255.255.0/24 addresses would be able to access the
Internet through the router. I don't think it matters what their subnet mask
is.

>> but I think it will work (albeit not for the reason you gave). On the
>> other hand, it seems of limited use because of the restriction I
>> mentioned above.
>
> Eh?

If you have 253 hosts (plus the router) or less, then you can use a /24 mask
on all of them. If you have more than 253 hosts that need access to the
Internet via the router, you are stuffed.

The only time it is useful to use the sort of configuration you described is
if you have more then 253 hosts, but at most 253 of them need access to the
Internet via the router. Somehow I doubt this is a common situation.

Alex

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:26:18 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:38:19 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>> AFAIK all you need to internetwork is a common broadcast address for
>>>> ARPs to resolve the MACs, so for example:
>>>
>>> ARP requests are sent to the Ethernet broadcast address, so it doesn't
>>> matter what the subnet mask in that respect. But a common broadcast
>>> address should mean IP broadcasts work, and that is likely to be
>>> important.
>>>
>>>> Address: 192.0.0.0 11000000 .00000000.00000000.00000000
>>>> Netmask: 255.0.0.0 = 8 11111111 .00000000.00000000.00000000
>>>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000 .11111111.11111111.11111111
>>>>
>>>> And
>>>>
>>>> Address: 192.255.255.0 11000000.11111111.11111111 .00000000
>>>> Netmask: 255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000
>>>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000.11111111.11111111 .11111111
>>>>
>>>> Should be able to talk to each other within the smaller /24 subnet.
>>>
>>> But only machines with a 255.255.255.0 mask will be able to access the
>>> Internet.
>>
>> Why on earth not? Just put any gateway hosts into the /24 netblock.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "gateway hosts" - "hosts that need
> access to the Internet"?

No, any hosts that are gateways. Google define:gateway.

> Anyway, what I wrote was nonsense - what I meant was that only machines with
> (using your example) 192.255.255.0/24 addresses would be able to access the
> Internet through the router. I don't think it matters what their subnet mask
> is.
>
>>> but I think it will work (albeit not for the reason you gave). On the
>>> other hand, it seems of limited use because of the restriction I
>>> mentioned above.
>>
>> Eh?
>
> If you have 253 hosts (plus the router) or less, then you can use a /24 mask
> on all of them. If you have more than 253 hosts that need access to the
> Internet via the router, you are stuffed.

The router is a gateway, so just place it's LAN address into the /24 net
block. You did know that the LAN address of a router was configurable?

Tony

Alex Fraser wrote:
> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:38:19 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >>> AFAIK all you need to internetwork is a common broadcast address for
> >>> ARPs to resolve the MACs, so for example:
> >>
> >> ARP requests are sent to the Ethernet broadcast address, so it doesn't
> >> matter what the subnet mask in that respect. But a common broadcast
> >> address should mean IP broadcasts work, and that is likely to be
> >> important.
> >>
> >>> Address: 192.0.0.0 11000000 .00000000.00000000.00000000
> >>> Netmask: 255.0.0.0 = 8 11111111 .00000000.00000000.00000000
> >>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000 .11111111.11111111.11111111
> >>>
> >>> And
> >>>
> >>> Address: 192.255.255.0 11000000.11111111.11111111 .00000000
> >>> Netmask: 255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000
> >>> Broadcast: 192.255.255.255 11000000.11111111.11111111 .11111111
> >>>
> >>> Should be able to talk to each other within the smaller /24 subnet.
> >>
> >> But only machines with a 255.255.255.0 mask will be able to access the
> >> Internet.
> >
> > Why on earth not? Just put any gateway hosts into the /24 netblock.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "gateway hosts" - "hosts that need
> access to the Internet"?
>
> Anyway, what I wrote was nonsense - what I meant was that only machines with
> (using your example) 192.255.255.0/24 addresses would be able to access the
> Internet through the router. I don't think it matters what their subnet mask
> is.
>

Well, it mattered. The addresses were 10.0.0.X (and also some were
10.20.30.X), the subnets were 255.0.0.0, and no computer could pass the
router until I have changed its subnet mask to 255.255.255.0. That is
the way it was. And then after changing the subnet masks, some of the
10.0.0.X couldn't talk (file sharing) anymore with the 10.20.30.X
computers, since they were not on the same mask anymore. I resorted to
installing NetBios, which broadcasts, and then most things worked. Also
I needed to "move" the IP of computers that were not on the 10.0.0.X
and I wanted them to get beyond the router. And if they were servers...
I ended up installing two NICs on some of them so they could be on
"both" networks. I bet it looks very funny, I would have laughed, if I
read that, if that didn't happen to me. It is very funny that someone
needs to change all his network settings for a router that refuses to
accept a number, and not because the router can't, but because some
idiot has decided so, and forgot to publish it in the specs of the
device. Check the specs yourself
http://www.dlink.com/products/resour...&rid=299&sec=0


> >> but I think it will work (albeit not for the reason you gave). On the
> >> other hand, it seems of limited use because of the restriction I
> >> mentioned above.
> >
> > Eh?
>
> If you have 253 hosts (plus the router) or less, then you can use a /24 mask
> on all of them. If you have more than 253 hosts that need access to the
> Internet via the router, you are stuffed.
>
> The only time it is useful to use the sort of configuration you described is
> if you have more then 253 hosts, but at most 253 of them need access to the
> Internet via the router. Somehow I doubt this is a common situation.
>
> Alex

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Alex Fraser wrote:
[snip]
>> Anyway, what I wrote was nonsense - what I meant was that only machines
>> with (using your example) 192.255.255.0/24 addresses would be able to
>> access the Internet through the router. I don't think it matters what
>> their subnet mask is.
>
> Well, it mattered.

Sheesh, I really wasn't thinking clearly last night, was I?

Without other routers in the mix, any given host will only be able to
communicate fully (which implies bidirectionally) with hosts in the range
implied by its address and mask. This is fundamental.

In your situation, provided the address of the router's LAN interface (with
the fixed mask of 255.255.255.0) and the address of the hosts needing
Internet access via the router are in the same /24 address range, using a
mask shorter than 255.255.255.0 on those hosts should not affect Internet
access. For example, 255.0.0.0 should work. (This is what I was trying to
say in my previous two posts.)

Using different masks on different hosts, but with all addresses within the
range implied by the host(s) with the shortest mask, is at best not
particularly useful. This is because it may limit which hosts can
communicate fully with each other, depending on what addresses you use.

Suppose you used addresses in 10.0.0.0/8 with mask 255.0.0.0 for some hosts
and addresses in 10.255.255.0/24 with mask 255.255.255.0 for others
(including the router), which if I understand correctly is equivalent to
what Tony originally suggested. Then IP broadcasts should work between any
two hosts. However, as a consequence of the fundamental point above, a host
that has an address outside 10.255.255.0/24 (mask 255.0.0.0) would not be
able to communicate fully with a host that has an address within
10.255.255.0/24 and mask 255.255.255.0. This is because the second host does
not consider the first as being on an attached network.

Alex