Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by jsmiddleton4, Apr 13, 2011.
So what's new with the new beta?
Some info here.
I like the static arp function. Was always annoying to have to reenter the MAC's, etc., when the information was already in the static DHCP table.
And enabling ARP does not prevent internet access through the gateway.
Bang on it time to see if I can break it...
ARP On still stopping traffic through the gateway/master router in wireless ethernet bridge mode.
All routers find eachother and connected devices. Connected wireless devices get "stuck" at the gateway with no passing through on to web.
Worked in WDS.
Turn ARP off in WET mode, works like a charm. All IP's/MAC's in static dhcp table. And they are listed in just the Master gateway router.
Just a thought - you do need to enter the address of your AP's and other routers in Static DHCP - anything that needs to access the internet must be in that table. [It's annoying but that's how it is - I had to enter 30+ MAC addresses remotely on a lot of sites]
You've already done that, just check they are the wireless MAC's, I'm sure you did but ..
It may be that's just something to do with the way WET works. I Pass ... !
I can't test anything here, today our internet has gone to pot. Varies between bugger all and 4 Mbps/200kbps .. all ADSL lines are the same. At first I was really doubtful of these latest builds, but I am not really sure now. Our ISP obviously has a big problem today!
I am trying to test the Bandwidth Limiter :frown:
"you do need to enter the address of your AP's and other routers in Static DHCP"
Did not do this. Trying now and will get back to you.
Which MAC? The 5 ghz MAC that is the ethernet bridge channel? Thinking yes but just checking....
I am not really sure Jim, but trying to think of all the reasons that *might* be the problem.
Added slave router's mac and IP to the DHCP static. Turned on ARP. Seems to be working. So in WDS mode because the slave router is not the same connection as WET ARP works in WDS mode without the DHCP static entry for the slave router but in WET mode the two routers talk to eachother differently then WDS and in that case it does need the DHCP static entry?
If that makes sense....
In other words, slave router not being listed meant anything connected to it was prevented from any traffic flow through the master router as the MAC/IP for the slave router, which the master router "sees" in WET mode, was unlisted?
Well, I guess it's the same as a simple AP in that sense. Nobody using the AP can get access to the web, unless the AP is in the table.
My internet is back up, and the Bandwidth Limiter seems to work fine after all.
It makes sense. WET is not the same as WDS in terms of how the routers see each other.
I've gone back to WDS. Its more flexible in terms of using simple wfilters to manage which client uses which router for initial wireless access. Can't use those filters selectively in WET because the master router sees the slave IP. In WDS the individual clients MAC/IP get maintained.
You can see that in the device list as well. In WDS the device list shows each client, MAC and IP. In WET device mode shows the IP/MAC of the slave bridge.
Two dumb questions:
1. I upgraded from the toastman xxx66 version. I didn't reset the NVRAM and it appears to be working fine. I don't use the bandwidth limiter so I didn't touch the settings. Should I have wiped the NVRAM anyway?
2. Can i flash back and forth between the Ext and VPN versions of the same firmware without requiring a NVRAM reset?
The "right" answer is you should always do NVRAM erase after and sometimes before a firmware update.
I have not done so with going back and forth between the same core as is happening with Toastman's and Victek's versions however.
Gone back to this version from playing with Victek's latest beta. Not because of any bugs. But because of the ARP option is easier to use in Toastman's. Plus I don't need VPN.
preferred version for e3000
I like Viktek's more. Caused me less troubles and was reliable up to now.
You say tomato, I say tomahto...
You say victek, I say toastman...
It's been a tough day, I'm feeling punchy,
I hope Victek takes a look at how Toastman did ARP. MUCH easier....
Just tried static ARP on one of my WET routers and, even though the client and WET router were in static table of the gateway router, just enabling static ARP caused lose of access to the Internet, without even restricting unlisted machines. Perhaps I need to switch from WET to WDS if I'm going to try that. Funny though it worked for you and not for me, :sad:. Oh well, guess that I don't really need the functionality, was just playing.
It didn't work until I put the WET's AP IP/MAC in the static DHCP table. And for me I'm using two dual channel E3000's and have the 5 ghz channel as the WET channels.
I put the WET router IP/MAC in the static table before trying it and no go. Maybe I'm missing something simple. If so I'm not seeing it now, maybe will come to me after some thought.
Router/gateway selected as relevant? WET as gateway, master as router?
For me the flexibility of WDS sold it over WET. I want the master to see its client's IP/MAC not the WET slave router's IP/MAC. WET sees each client through the slave router's IP. WDS does not.
Just switched the same router over to WDS and both "Enable static ARP" and "Restrict unlisted machines" work fine in that mode, was a no-go with WET. Now switched totally from WET back to WDS, see how it goes.
I'd turn off any security as well until you get connected. I had a filter in the master router that I had to disable. Master as AP, slave as Ethernet Bridge mode, Slave in the DHCP Static table, saved and had to reboot to reconnect the routers. Master set to router, slave set to gateway.
It worked for me with WPA AES. Not sure about any other security protocols.
-Filter in the master router that I had to disable
What type of filter? This is perhaps something I need to look at as well.
-Master as AP
-Slave as Ethernet Bridge mode
-Slave in the DHCP Static table
-Saved and had to reboot to reconnect the routers
Not sure that I rebooted both so if I go back to WET this is something to try.
-Master set to router, slave set to gateway
This part I don't understand. If your slave is in WET mode, then I suspect it doesn't matter how this is set since the WAN port is disabled. But perhaps I should try changing it on the slave just to see if it makes a difference. On the master, if this is the Internet connected router, without gateway mode then don't think there will be any NAT to map what I would assume to be a private non-routable LAN to the Internet public address space. When I tested putting my Internet connected router from gateway to router mode, I lost all access to the Internet. Did you perhaps mean the opposite?
-It worked for me with WPA AES
"What type of filter?"
Simple wireless filters that I use in WDS mode to steer clients toward a particular router. The E3000's will pickup clients from all over the house and one E3000 will be used to the exclusion of the other. So I use simple wireless filters to keep the client load spread across each E3000. So in the home theater area where particular laptops get used, those laptops connect via the E3000 slave that is part of my home theater. Clients in back of house, kids who do home work, get on line, etc., access the master router but can't get on the home theater E3000. Wireless filters to prevent connection to particular routers.
Nothing complicated, just simple shaping of demand. With WET they don't work as intended given the way bridge mode works.
Edit: Just checked, had the router/gateway thing backwards. Slave is router, Master is gateway.
I might have the gateway and router thing backwards. But they do need to be set for which is which.
Just changed mine to WET. Works fine. Since my is dual channel simultaneous I have the 5ghz on a different SSID as well. Of course they are the same in slave and master just different than the 2.4ghz channels.
Good idea, never thought of that.
OK, thanks, sounds like I may have made a bad assumption, based on previous experience that this setting didn't matter. Definitely 1st thing to try next time I try WET.
Well I just hammered it and it no longer works with latest version with ARP on at all. Clients can't get through master router where ARP tables are being used to the web.
So it's not just me? Using static ARP with WET on the latest build is not functioning for you either? Save me some trouble of going back and trying it again, for now anyway, if it's also not working for others. WDS working for now. Not perfect synchronization after rebooting, but stable once it's working.
Works fine with ARP turned off. I have to double check something. I can't remember what I had DNS set to as in use internal DNS, etc. I remember that I changed it but don't remember how I had it set.
Didn't matter. No matter what at this point turning ARP on in general and the clients attached to the slave router can not get through the master. Turn ARP off, works fine.
Sounds like the same thing I saw earlier today, before switching to WDS. Thanks for the info.
Same behavior with Victek's firmware. This may be a normal behavior with ARP and WET. With the way WET device table in the master router show the slave IP not clients could be ARP getting confused in WET mode but not in WDS? There is obviously something different between the two modes regarding how the master router "sees" the slave router/clients.
"Client Bridge mode will only recognize one mac address on the bridged setup, due a limitation in the 802.11 protocol, even if there are multiple clients (with multiple mac addresses) connected to the client router. If you want to bridge a full LAN you must use WDS."
That is consistent with what I pointed out regarding the device connected table. Only shows the slave IP although individual clients have access. Master router only "sees" the slave IP. So ARP will choke in ethernet bridge mode.
Thanks again for the info, gives me more motivation to figure out how to live with the quirks of WDS.
Its at least comforting to know that we were trying to do what in fact could not be done....
Yes. The bridge works, but not with static ARP. And it makes sense once you understand that it's not really transparent layer 2 like WDS but some sort of MAC proxy is going on.
Toastman firmware xx67 on e3000
Hi, I have switched from Victek's to check the Toastman firmware.
I like it, but noticed that even when router works separately it became quite noisy - if compare with Victeks and is warm more than before.
Looks I read somewhere here about it. but cannot point the message again.
Do you have any advice if some firmware features could be switched off to decrease noise at least.
There are no moving parts or fan in an E3000. I'm curious as to what "noise" are you hearing from a static E3000 device.
Well, I will check again. There are plenty devices connected there, but all they were switched off with desktop PC...o(, but "humming sound" remained...
I have fibre cable internet line going to WAN port and 4 lans...
Paranormal activity? ;o)))
So sounds issues are reported on ddwrt and even on tomato USB site.
Only advice found is
"...lowering the TX should lower the noise"...
"100mw is to high. 42mw is the default TX power. When I had an e3000 I set the TX power 56mw w/o problems..."
will check when will be at home.
Are you referring to an audible noise, or Radio Frequency "noise" which is actually a technical description describing interference due to nonlinearity in a power amplifier? I have never seen anyone talk about an "audible" noise. So I believe you are probably misunderstanding what you read.
There are in fact some small switching power stabilisers in these routers which conceivably could make a whining noise. You would have to be pretty close to it to hear anything from the small ferrite inductors used. Doubtful if a change in firmware would make any difference though.
yes, it is close to me, in 40 cm, on the top of the desktop box.
Sound is audible, similar like hdd humming. But it is not so important. I am investigating because curious why.
I've had horrible results with the latest 1.28.7467 build. Recently my RT-N16 just restarted on it own, and has been completely dropping all wireless clients frequently. I have not experienced these issues using any other firmware before.
I see others having the same issue here: http://tomatousb.org/forum/t-349058/toastman-build-1-28-7467-rt-n16-wireless-dropping
Definitely is related to this specific firmware, not config/hardware related IMO.
I took a look at that thread and only saw one post indicating problems and it was with both the 1.28.7467 build AND Teddy Bears Build 54.
Not having any problems here. What type wireless clients do you have?
There does appear to be something going on. It is very hard for anyone to get this right, there are so many versions of the wireless driver from Broadcom, no source code, no documentation, and different behavior with different wireless clients.
In my experience here, with perhaps 2000-3000 clients in the different buildings, one way or another everyone has managed to gain access to an AP and nobody currently compliants of dropouts. I do know that what few problems there have been are usually due to the use of Intel wireless client drivers or connection software. Many chinese made phones are also a problem, as are Apple devices in general.
There are also many people saying that the signal strength with the latest wireless drivers is lower than with the OEM firmware. Not so here, it's just about the same.
I have used your builds before, as well as Victek's, and have not had these issues. The entire router crashed/restarted, and not just that, but even while the router is running it still will drop clients with good signal strength out of nowhere, and it will drop ALL clients, not just one.
Clients range from PS3, Blackberry 9700, Airlink101 Wireless N Adapter (Ralink chipset), Linksys WMP54G, LG TV Wireless N USB Adapter.
After thinking of which firmware to switch to, I decided what I thought was the highest chance of being a stable firmware, DD-WRT build 14929 which is the currently recommended Broadcom build.
Sounds like it may be related to the broadcom wireless driver version. If your results are good would you mind posting the wireless driver version? On Tomato I think this is the wireless controller version in the logs, perhaps the same on dd-wrt.