craigf wrote:This is a 2.4GHz router only, so you won't get the fastest possible 802.11n speeds (which require 5GHz).

While this can be true, 5GHz may not have as long of range as the 2.4GHz. However, there are also other things to take into account, such as interference. You are more likely to have interference from devices such as microwaves and cordless phones (not cell phones) on the 2.4GHz frequency.

Wireless networking using the unlicensed (and licensed) 5GHz frequency bands is the new kid on the block. It uses the same basic technology and methods as 802.11g (54Mbps) wireless but operating in the 5.1-5.8GHz frequency bands instead of the 2.4GHz band. Also, unlike 802.11g, it uses OFDM technology over the whole speed range (1-54Mbps); 11g only uses OFDM at speeds above 20Mbps.

Operating at the 5GHz radio bands has several advantages over the more common 2.4GHz band:

Better penetration
Better scatter
No abnormal adsorbtion by water or damp
Larger number of non-overlapping channels which means less radio congestion
OFDM over the whole speed range (better for non line of site operation)
On the downside, the Free Space Loss for 5GHz is about 6db worse than 2.4Ghz but, on the good side, the UK permitted power levels are 3-10db (depending upon the actual frequency) higher than 2.4GHz. This means, if you are using 5GHz for long range site-to-site connectivity you need to use a higher power level to cover the same distance.

This item had been on my Amazon wish list for many moons, but I eventually took it off due high price and questionable utility.

Now, at $99 for a new (not refurbed, to my surprise) I'll give this a go. A 500GB drive will be about 50 bucks, so for $150 or so I'll have a better looking router that has alternate functionality. I'd been looking for a while to get a box that would be able to do bittorrent by itself. I don't like keeping a machine running just so it can keep my torrents seeding. I download lots of linux ISO files. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

jlovell999 wrote:I beg to differ. I own a D-Link DNS-321 NAS and they have abandoned it. Almost identical to the DNS-323 but no further firmware updates are coming for the 321. We just need support for the new advanced format drives (4K sectors) without having to jump through hoops.

This is why it pays to build an actual server instead of using a NAS. Old PC + big cheap drive + just about any Linux distro = File server on a budget.

Then you can add anything else you want - Samba to support Windows shares, uPNP server, external backup, web and mail server, software RAID, whatever. And if you have a hardware failure, your drives and OS are completely portable to a new system without rebuilding.

todaresq wrote:Here is the answer

Clever.

annoying way to answer a question, but clever.

ctownclown wrote:Hey so does anyone know how this router would fair with Fios?

If you just have FIOS interet only with an ethernet WAN connection, just fine. It's a simple direct replacement.

If you have FIOS TV and/or a coax WAN connection to the VZ router it gets a little complicated...

If you have coax WAN:

1) You have to get VZ to switch your WAN connection from coax to ethernet. They can do this over the phone.

2) You have to run CAT5e from the ONT to the new router.

If you have TV service:

You still need to have a coax connection in place so your STB (set-top-box) units can access On-Demand and download program guide data. This can be done by putting the Verizon-supplied router in bridge mode making it work as an ethernet to coax bridge.

Remote DVR and Onscreen Caller ID are not supported with use of a non-Verizon supplied router. This doesn't mean it won't work but you have to set up a pretty advanced configuration. There is a discussion about it on the Verizon FIOS forums over at DSLreports.com

On-Demand and everything else will work just fine.

Granted, you could put this unit behind the Verizon router, essentially using it as an ethernet switch and a wireless access point, but it's alot of money to spend IMO just for that...

storage and a router... that's just strange...

SinnFein wrote:If you just have FIOS interet only with an ethernet WAN connection, just fine. It's a simple direct replacement.

If you have FIOS TV and/or a coax WAN connection to the VZ router it gets a little complicated...

If you have coax WAN:

1) You have to get VZ to switch your WAN connection from coax to ethernet. They can do this over the phone.

2) You have to run CAT5e from the ONT to the new router.

If you have TV service:

You still need to have a coax connection in place so your STB (set-top-box) units can access On-Demand and download program guide data. This can be done by putting the Verizon-supplied router in bridge mode making it work as an ethernet to coax bridge.

Remote DVR and Onscreen Caller ID are not supported with use of a non-Verizon supplied router. This doesn't mean it won't work but you have to set up a pretty advanced configuration. There is a discussion about it on the Verizon FIOS forums over at DSLreports.com

On-Demand and everything else will work just fine.

Granted, you could put this unit behind the Verizon router, essentially using it as an ethernet switch and a wireless access point, but it's alot of money to spend IMO just for that...

Just for what? Basically all you'd be giving up is the actual routing, which is really a very small part of the cost here, and the Verizon-provided box handles fine. With most spiffy wifi routers (at least those for home use) you're paying more for the wireless features, and here you'd still be able to use NAS, FTP, bittorrent, all the stuff that make this box expensive.

Also, I haven't read the forum thread you refer to, but I have to think you can log into the Verizon box, set up a DMZ for this unit and switch off DHCP, so that the Verizon box simply passes internet data here while only handling TV and other functions itself. That way you can use this one as your actual router.

dwasifar wrote:This is why it pays to build an actual server instead of using a NAS. Old PC + big cheap drive + just about any Linux distro = File server on a budget.

Then you can add anything else you want - Samba to support Windows shares, uPNP server, external backup, web and mail server, software RAID, whatever. And if you have a hardware failure, your drives and OS are completely portable to a new system without rebuilding.

True enough, but then you have the space and power requirements of a full computer. The idea of using a small dedicated NAS is a smaller footprint, less noise, and less power use.

mattlscc wrote:storage and a router... that's just strange...

The first thing I said to myself when I saw this was, "WHY?"

Wow all this talk about frequency, Shannon-Hartley, Nyquist.......

Not once does frequency appear in the Shannon-Hartley theorem.

Anyone who's even thinking about talking about this stuff, should slowly put down the laptop (webpage set to Wikipedia) and pick up a good book written by Lathi, Rappaport, or Lyon.

By the way you increase throughput (i.e., pron download capability) with bandwidth (e.g., OFDM, think 802.11n) or a higher-order modulation (e.g., something both phase and amplitude modulated....16-QAM versus BPSK ; hence the SNR in the Shannon-Hartley theorem).

BTW, I'm not a nerd or a geek....I'm worse...an Electrical Engineer.

equazcion wrote:Just for what? Basically all you'd be giving up is the actual routing, which is really a very small part of the cost here, and the Verizon-provided box handles fine. With most spiffy wifi routers (at least those for home use) you're paying more for the wireless features, and here you'd still be able to use NAS, FTP, bittorrent, all the stuff that make this box expensive.

Also, I haven't read the forum thread you refer to, but I have to think you can log into the Verizon box, set up a DMZ for this unit and switch off DHCP, so that the Verizon box simply passes internet data here while only handling TV and other functions itself. That way you can use this one as your actual router.

I wish you had gone to the trouble to italicize the IMO in my statement. Then maybe you wouldn't have gotten so worked up.
I was just saying I wouldn't spend the money on this device myself. Sorry if that's a problem...

In terms of the Verizon routers, alot of people (gamers in particular) have issues with because the NAT tables are too small, at least in the case of the Actiontec. The Westell 9100 routers are better in this regard but they are only deployed in certain parts of the country. Alot of other people simply want to run their own router for various other reasons.

In theory, what you suggest would work. However, you would be running in a double-NAT configuration behind the D-Link. For some users/applications this can cause issues.

For the longest time, Verizon's router was sitting on a shelf collecting dust in my closet. I was using my DIR-655 only and everything worked 100%. I had a NIM (ethernet to MOCA device) providing the connection for the STB's.

However, they made a change to their end forcing everyone to use their router as the primary. Since then, some pretty bright people on that forum have figured out how to trick the system and get things working while using their own router as primary using a 3rd router to backfeed the WAN IP so Verizon's system thinks their router is up front.

In my case, it is not worth the trouble. I have the DIR-655 behind Verizon's router in a LAN-to-LAN configuration.

ctownclown wrote:Hey so does anyone know how this router would fair with Fios?

It should fare fine.

wow so this thing is a wireless router, a photo frame, and network attached storage...Does this thing do back flips too?

chipgreen wrote:IME?

I don't have experience with this router but I do have past experience with several D-Link products and they've always been solid. Just my .02c

Do an internet search on DGL-4500 problems.

Conformation, I've done this. It is a huge pain to convince Verizon, but well worth it.

SinnFein wrote:If you just have FIOS interet only with an ethernet WAN connection, just fine. It's a simple direct replacement.

If you have FIOS TV and/or a coax WAN connection to the VZ router it gets a little complicated...

If you have coax WAN:

1) You have to get VZ to switch your WAN connection from coax to ethernet. They can do this over the phone.

2) You have to run CAT5e from the ONT to the new router.

If you have TV service:

You still need to have a coax connection in place so your STB (set-top-box) units can access On-Demand and download program guide data. This can be done by putting the Verizon-supplied router in bridge mode making it work as an ethernet to coax bridge.

Remote DVR and Onscreen Caller ID are not supported with use of a non-Verizon supplied router. This doesn't mean it won't work but you have to set up a pretty advanced configuration. There is a discussion about it on the Verizon FIOS forums over at DSLreports.com

On-Demand and everything else will work just fine.

Granted, you could put this unit behind the Verizon router, essentially using it as an ethernet switch and a wireless access point, but it's alot of money to spend IMO just for that...

imtigger2 wrote:The first thing I said to myself when I saw this was, "WHY?"

Easy - for the same reason we have one device that serves as a cell phone, digital camera, GPS, wireless remote and various other functions.

It's getting to the point where we may very well have one generic "technology toaster" that will do multiple things based on small chip-sized modules that you install yourself.

dwasifar wrote:So what you're saying is, Microsoft ignores the existence of a world outside Redmond, and that's D-Link's fault?

If you're going to place blame, place it where it belongs. If Outlook is designed to fail when used with the world's most common server filesystem, that is Outlook's fault. And if Windows is designed to be unable to mount foreign filesystems, that's Windows' fault. Linux and OS X will recognize and mount Windows partitions, but Microsoft chooses not to reciprocate, just to make interoperability more difficult.

That's an excellent point.

VeloSteve wrote:Does anyone know if there's an easy way to connect a 3.5" drive to this thing? I wouldn't mind having to run a short cable or two, and I have several 3.5" drives sitting around.

Sure, just get a SATA extension from DX and find a way to power the thing.

Link if Woot will let me do that sort of thing: DX SKU 14062

SinnFein wrote:I wish you had gone to the trouble to italicize the IMO in my statement. Then maybe you wouldn't have gotten so worked up.
I was just saying I wouldn't spend the money on this device myself. Sorry if that's a problem...

In terms of the Verizon routers, alot of people (gamers in particular) have issues with because the NAT tables are too small, at least in the case of the Actiontec. The Westell 9100 routers are better in this regard but they are only deployed in certain parts of the country. Alot of other people simply want to run their own router for various other reasons.

In theory, what you suggest would work. However, you would be running in a double-NAT configuration behind the D-Link. For some users/applications this can cause issues.

For the longest time, Verizon's router was sitting on a shelf collecting dust in my closet. I was using my DIR-655 only and everything worked 100%. I had a NIM (ethernet to MOCA device) providing the connection for the STB's.

However, they made a change to their end forcing everyone to use their router as the primary. Since then, some pretty bright people on that forum have figured out how to trick the system and get things working while using their own router as primary using a 3rd router to backfeed the WAN IP so Verizon's system thinks their router is up front.

In my case, it is not worth the trouble. I have the DIR-655 behind Verizon's router in a LAN-to-LAN configuration.

I'm not worked up, I just disagree, and/or think you might be overstating what people would be giving up by using this as a switch. Like I said, basically all the features would still be available in that setup, sans the routing and maybe QOS? But who uses that at home anyway... and maybe the Verizon boxes have that too (I don't know firsthand).

I'm not sure what you mean about the double-NAT "behind" the D-Link. The D-Link and Verizon boxes would be the only routers involved as far as I can tell, and actual NAT functionality would essentially be switched off in the Verizon box by only running the D-Link off it as a DMZ.

Offhand I can't imagine what problems that would cause, if any. The Verizon box would be all but invisible to the LAN, unless a client explicitly logged into it. Many cable and DSL modems work in a similar way, bearing their own DHCP/NAT functionality, only switched off by default (and lacking extra ports to make use of it without an external switch); so they instead dumbly pass data on to the router. People don't generally have LAN problems with those, to my knowledge.

Admittedly this is conjecture since I haven't dealt with FiOS hardware (yet), and there could be factors I'm unaware of, but still I haven't heard any yet that would belie this solution.

Maybe I missed this, but on the product website says it will support a 500GB drive, while the Woot! product info states up to 1TB.

Aside from the physical dimensions of a specific 1TB drive mentioned in an earlier post about this device, was DLink just being conservative when they list up to a 500GB drive on their site?

Just curious.

One thing I'd consider trying to run on this thing would be Subsonic.

Edit: Ok, "Capacity can go up pending future technology" is listed in the fine print on the specs pdf.

I guess that answers that.

Since the device is about 2 years old now (pointed out in an earlier post), I'm guessing there were no 1TB 2.5” sata drives available when this device 1st hit the market.

joulem wrote:Maybe I missed this, but on the product website says it will support a 500GB drive, while the Woot! product info states up to 1TB.

Aside from the physical dimensions of a specific 1TB drive mentioned in an earlier post about this device, was DLink just being conservative when they list up to a 500GB drive on their site?

Just curious.

One thing I'd consider trying to run on this thing would be Subsonic.

Apparently, when the ad copy was written, there were no 1TB drives that fit properly. I don't know if that has changed, but it could explain the modified claim.

BTW, if you want more than 1TB, you can use a larger USB drive.

NightGhost wrote:Apparently, when the ad copy was written, there were no 1TB drives that fit properly. I don't know if that has changed, but it could explain the modified claim.

BTW, if you want more than 1TB, you can use a larger USB drive.

Thx 4 the info. If this thing comes back around, I might just get it. Will have to pass this time, though.

NightGhost wrote:Apparently, when the ad copy was written, there were no 1TB drives that fit properly. I don't know if that has changed, but it could explain the modified claim.

BTW, if you want more than 1TB, you can use a larger USB drive.

...or a USB hub with multiple drives... wonder if that'd work.

equazcion wrote:I'm not worked up, I just disagree, and/or think you might be overstating what people would be giving up by using this as a switch. Like I said, basically all the features would still be available in that setup, sans the routing and maybe QOS? But who uses that at home anyway... and maybe the Verizon boxes have that too (I don't know firsthand).

I'm not sure what you mean about the double-NAT "behind" the D-Link. The D-Link and Verizon boxes would be the only routers involved as far as I can tell, and actual NAT functionality would essentially be switched off in the Verizon box by only running the D-Link off it as a DMZ.

Offhand I can't imagine what problems that would cause, if any. The Verizon box would be all but invisible to the LAN, unless a client explicitly logged into it. Many cable and DSL modems work in a similar way, bearing their own DHCP/NAT functionality, only switched off by default (and lacking extra ports to make use of it without an external switch); so they instead dumbly pass data on to the router. People don't generally have LAN problems with those, to my knowledge.

Admittedly this is conjecture since I haven't dealt with FiOS hardware (yet), and there could be factors I'm unaware of, but still I haven't heard any yet that would belie this solution.

FIOS is a different animal. The FIOS router is not a modem and doesn't behave as such. It was a bit of a learning process when I got FIOS 7 years ago after having DSL and cable. Their architecture is different in some ways.

If you place a second router behind the VZ one and connect it LAN to LAN, the second router will work just peachy as a switch/AP. Since you aren't using the WAN port on the second router, it's not doing NAT. Lets call this configuration #1.

However, if you connect the second router through it's WAN port to the primarry VZ router it will also be doing NAT. Lets call this configuration #2

Now, under configuration #1 I wonder if things like BitTorrent will actually work with the DIR-685 because you aren't using the WAN port. If it "wants to get to the internet" through the WAN port and since that's not connected, it would be unable to do so. I could be wrong here. Maybe there is a way around that. But since VZ made that configuration change forcing me to use their router as primary so my Remote DVR would work, my DIR-655 is connected this way and it sees the WAN connection as being down.

Under configuration #2 you have the VZ router doing NAT from the internet to an internal network. Well, if you plug the second router in behind it that via WAN will also be doing NAT. As the second router treats everything from it's WAN port outward as an external network. Putting the second router in a DMZ via the first router doesn't change the fact that ther second router will also be doing NAT. The external IP of the second router is an internal IP on the first router's network. Enabling DMZ just gets it out from behind the firewall. Google double NAT and you can find out what kind of applications have issues with double NAT. Again, for some it would not be an issue.

As I posted before, the VZ router can be configured as a bridge to allow the second router to do everything. The only practical application for this is for people who have a coax-only installation. The VZ router in essence would become a coax to ethernet adapter. If you have an ethernet installation, you would have no purpose in doing this. Again, the tradeoff is that some of the TV-related features would not work because in bridge mode VZ's system wouldn't see their router.

As far as QoS goes, some people would use it, some won't. Since Verizon's On-Demand comes through on "the internet side" as opposed to "the TV side" of things, that could be an issue. The only thing I did with QoS is to give my devices highest priority on my network so my stepson's online gaming doesn't hinder my connection when he comes home for a visit.

Shipped!!!

Mine came in with a cracked screen. (Sad Face)

Mine came today with a cracked screen too!
BOOO!!!

nealdo wrote:Mine came in with a cracked screen. (Sad Face)

bummer, at least it came quick so you could get the disappointment over with.
Mine came today.
No screen cracks, yippy, but some chipping on the plastic that covers the screen. Using it right now seems to work just awesome.

I got to join the cracked screen club, as well. Bummed out. Woot is issuing a refund, but they said they have none left to replace. I'm guessing since this item didn't sell out, they've had to replace a few.

Cracked screen here, too. Bah.

Cracked screen here too! Guess someone dropped these boxes, found several broken screens, and said screw it, we'll see if Woot will take these for cheap.

Didn't want a refund, want the router, so sent it off to D-Link, but they don't pay for shipping.

Got the replacement today. It's just a wee bit cracked but I can live with it.
BTW, Woot has great Customer Service.

So I got my replacement yesterday. Same deal. Cracked screen and chips along the top of the screen. How do these even make it out of the factory like this????

Getting a 3rd replacement. Hopefully this time I get a good one. I called D-Link support and they told me a cracked screen wasnt covered under their warranty and I needed to deal with woot to get a replacement.

:-(

Wait. How are you guys getting replacements? Woot RMA said they didn't have any to replace with. I really hope they're not sending you guys the ones we're sending back.

Othernash wrote:Wait. How are you guys getting replacements? Woot RMA said they didn't have any to replace with. I really hope they're not sending you guys the ones we're sending back.

I just e-mailed the woot service account and they said they will send me a replacement. My replacement was brand new sealed so they arent sending out ones that people had problems with.
If I get a 3rd with a bad screen I will get my $$$ back..

nealdo wrote:Got the replacement today. It's just a wee bit cracked but I can live with it.
BTW, Woot has great Customer Service.

Normally I'd agree with you, but I'm wondering why you were able to swing a replacement when I was told there are none available.

I decided to keep mine. It's perfectly usable, and I don't plan on displaying photos on it. Truth be told, the thing works great.

Cracked screen on mine, but works fine anyway (even the menu buttons with cracks over them work).

Good thing I didn't buy it for looks :-)

ptooey wrote:Normally I'd agree with you, but I'm wondering why you were able to swing a replacement when I was told there are none available.

Not sure. I contacted them right away (Last Wednesday) and requested a replacement. Maybe we got the last few.