1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is the WRV200 Stable for anyone?

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by jay_cee, Feb 1, 2008.

  1. jay_cee

    jay_cee LI Guru Member

    I've had a wrv200 for about two weeks now. I need wifi at home as well as an IPSEC tunnel into work. An affordable one box solution seemed ideal. However, like many people, I'm finding the wrv200 to be very unstable (at least on the 1.0.32.2 firmware). Every few days I lose connection to the internet and am unable to access the router's configuration http interface. A power cycle fixes everything, but I'm not willing to put up with a power cycle every few days.

    I'm still within my return window at Fry's and am thinking about switching back to my old configuration: A netgear wireless router setup as an access point plugged into a BEFSX41. Two boxes was a little annoying, but the set-up was very reliable until the BEFSX41 croaked on me after several years of good services.

    So, my question: Does _anyone_ have the wrv200 working reliably? Are there any "I've never had to reboot" my router stories out there? I'm willing to fight with it a little more before I give up if I know there is hope...
     
  2. vpnuser

    vpnuser LI Guru Member

    The basic stability problems were fixed with the newer beta firmware, e.g. 1.0.37. We have been waiting for 1.0.38 to come out to fix the FTP issue once and for all.
     
  3. jay_cee

    jay_cee LI Guru Member

    Thanks for the reply.

    I think I'm going to swap it out for the BEFSX41. I do use FTP periodically. This thing has been out for over a year and it seems like it still has fundamental problems; that doesn't seem to bode too well for future firmware upgrades. I know that the BEFSX41 does what I need....
     
  4. linksysbites

    linksysbites LI Guru Member

    The http access 'seems' to be fixed, but giving it a bit more time to see. QuickVPN does not work with the router, if using vista.
     
  5. Sfor

    Sfor Network Guru Member

    The VPN is the best part of WRV200. But, other functions are not so good. I've got two WRV200 routers. One is working very well. It reboots itself just about once in a week. The other one reboots itsels a few times a day, sometimes. Both are running 1.0.37 firmware. The HTTP interface seems to be very reliable now.

    The WRV200 has one major advantage over other routers. It is very fast with the VPN encryption. It can go up to 30 MBit with 3DES, while other cheap routers are many times slower. I did not replaced the WRV200 because of it's VPN performance, mainly.
     
  6. Justin-Goldberg

    Justin-Goldberg LI Guru Member

    It there a way to make it only do vpn and not routing, in some way bridged through another router, or is that something that's preposterous?
     
  7. Sfor

    Sfor Network Guru Member

    I'm trying to do it, right now.

    I just got a new OvisLink AirLive IP-1000R router. I want it to be my main router, while the WRV200 will be just a VPN gateway.

    I tried to do so with an older router without IPSec Pass Through function , but I failed.
     
  8. pablito

    pablito Network Guru Member

    With IPSEC passthrough and a static route at the main router it should. But technically it is still routing, just not for everything anymore.
     
  9. Sfor

    Sfor Network Guru Member

    Well. It seems to be working with another WRV200, as the remote gateway. But, I can not establish a tunnel to a remote RV042.
     
  10. Justin-Goldberg

    Justin-Goldberg LI Guru Member

    That great to hear! All I need is incoming vpn tunnels, and not outgoing, if I'm using the right terminology.

    Does the router specifically have to support that function; couldn't I just forward the right ports? I have a netopia 3347nwg dsl router at work that I'm hoping will work with a wrv200.


    Are you running an ftp server, or using a client? It's a kludgy workaround, but if you're using filezilla it supports socks 4a connections, which means you can route your ftp through TOR, the onion router, but it's slower than wire speed is unfeasible for a high volume of transfers. But it's quite cool, the server you connect to never knows your real address ;-)
     
  11. Sfor

    Sfor Network Guru Member

    Both tunnels are working correctly, at the moment. In order to get a connection to RV042 I had to map ports 500 and 4500 to the WRV200.
     
  12. Justin-Goldberg

    Justin-Goldberg LI Guru Member

    Thanks, Sfor. I found that our netopia 3347nwg has an ipsec passthrough option also.
     
  13. Justin-Goldberg

    Justin-Goldberg LI Guru Member

    Has anyone used eight simultaneous tunnels on the WRV200? Is their a newer version of this router, preferably with the same encryption capability?

    Also does anyone want to collaborate on this comparison of all the soho routers out there? If so, pm me with your google account email.

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcj7ntkh_5hn5zd2fj
     
  14. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Are you asking your question (eight simultaneous tunnels) with regards to Quickvpn? IPSEC VPN tunnels on the WRV200 is maxes out at 5... Also, there should be some new firmware for the WRV200 shortly, stay tuned...

    What type of comparisons are you looking for regarding SOHO routers?
     
  15. Justin-Goldberg

    Justin-Goldberg LI Guru Member

    I need 10 vpn tunnels. All I see every soho router I've looked at is 1-5, then 30, etc... I can't find any 10 tunnel vpns. And I can't just acquire two or more and use different ports, right?

    The data sheet on linksys.com says it supports ten, I guess that means it supports ten clients or keys overall, not simultaneously.
     
  16. nheimler

    nheimler LI Guru Member

    Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat. With the exception I am running the 1.0.37 firmware that was supposedly supposed to fix Vista issues with the VPN software; however, after everything suggested after flashing the new firmware I'm still unable to use the latest VPN software for Vista. I'm wondering if this is an issue with SP1 which I do have installed. Unfortunately, I have no way of testing it without it unless I reinstall without the service pack which I do not want to do. Anyone else having issues with VPN still with SP1 installed? Anything else someone can suggest maybe? I've done pretty much everything all the forums in here have suggested to do, but still no luck. I wonder if 1.0.38 will fix this issue with SP1.
     
  17. Justin-Goldberg

    Justin-Goldberg LI Guru Member

    For a single user openvpn can work well. The server does run on Windows.

    Of course, it works well for multiple users but good luck getting management sold on it. If something is free how can it possibly be any good? :wink:
     
  18. HughR

    HughR LI Guru Member

    Too bad we haven't rebuilt the firmware from source. Openswan has no wired-in limit on the number of tunnels.

    The number of tunnels, within reason, isn't an important factor in computing capacity. More relevant is total encrypted bandwidth, both in terms of packets and bytes.

    A limit of 10 tunnels is dumb. Apparently this is part of the Linksys "added value".
     

Share This Page