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

    nxdark Network Guru Member

    It seems like alot of people have bad stories about this router. Has anyone has success with it? If so I'd like to here about it. I'm getting one of these from ebay to replace my dying linksys befsr41. More or less I wanted a router to with these features for future use. I was also wondering if there is going to be any third party firmware. I have a feeling not.
  2. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Success is "all the way around the block" now that the vpn mystery is solved:


    Not that I'm trying to hog all of the "My WRV54G works great!!" conversation but, My WRV54G works great!! I've got vpn capability from anywhere and the 50 clien license upgrade is worth the money.

    I've attached the link above if you need some reassurance about buying this home router because previously, it was crap due to not having decent setup instructions for the vpn. Now, this product (IMHO) is the sh*t!

  3. nxdark

    nxdark Network Guru Member

    any idea on third party firmware
    or is the intel chip code not being GPL gonna stop that

    how is the wireless range?
  4. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    You can increase the range of the wrv54g with the following antennae:


    As far as can be seen, there's been no word on the street (that I personally have heard of) where there might be any 3rd party firmware offered for this model. Now that the quickvpn function is starting to work for people, Linksys may drop another "shroud of darkness" around it to protect 3rd party vendors from capitalizing :) :)

  5. nxdark

    nxdark Network Guru Member

    I've read that the Intel chipset code is not in the GPL
    which would make it hard to make code?

    it would be nice if there was the option... but I think it's an Intel that doesn't want there stuff public
  6. GuyllFyre

    GuyllFyre Network Guru Member

    That's all well and good for using the "QuickVPN" bullshit software. I bought this router for point to point VPN and wireless functions and it has been an abysmal pile of crap.

    I'm really sick of having to reset my settings when I flash to the next damned firmware to see if the useless pile of crap will actually work. Since the config file can't be loaded into the next version, I'm SOL for fast testing.

    So I have a router that won't do VPN and reboots randomly when the wireless connection is stressed in any manner.

    I really hate having to re-enter all of my settings. This is really my big nit to pick with LinkSys on this one. I don't have time to screw with resetting IPs, all of my security settings, and all of my VPN tunnel settings every time I want to try to get this pile of crap to work.

    What I don't understand is how they took a perfectly good pile of code (example SmoothWall Express 2.0 uses VERY similar parts) and have it fail to work so miserably. I spent days trying to get the WRV54G to work and then an hour to build a SmoothWall box and had it work first time.

    Honestly, they WRV54G is a dud and should never have been released. I feel sorry for those who have also been suckered into buying one.

  7. nxdark

    nxdark Network Guru Member

    it seems to me that if they fix the NAT-T issue the router will be even better
  8. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    I agree NX, the NAT-T should be fixed but it's highly unlikely because then the WRV would be utilized mostly by third party software, which is why Linksys created the quickvpn client exclusively for the WRV54G.

    Guyllfyre, it would do you some good to stop farting in the bathtub and biting the bubble that rises from beneath :) :) Methane will rot your brain and you're too young to have your brain cells corroded by drugs...

    If you can't get quickvpn to work, say so, and somebody will help, dude. Yes, Linksys failed in informing people how to "establish a basic connection" with the quickvpn client to the router and yes, they failed to inform people the NAT-T patches were intentionally left out in order to make quickvpn the "sole" vpn appliance when used from behind another NAT'd router. Since neither you nor I are going to build new code anytime soon, that means we "all" deal with what's available.

    Having said that, on the homepage of this site, the quickvpn setup guide I threw together is posted, and it does work. Here's a few posts you can read to verify:

    1) http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5113

    2) http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5685

    3) http://www.linksysinfo.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5120

    In one way or another, we're all IT. No reason why anyone should be left behind, without a fix, or pissed off, otherwise all of the assistance rendered here is pointless...

    (Doc dives off his soapbox to bodysurf in the crowd!!!)

    Yea, baby!!!!!

  9. nxdark

    nxdark Network Guru Member

    with that said it makes the built-in windows VPN client useless

    I don't get why we should be forced to use one client anyways
  10. GuyllFyre

    GuyllFyre Network Guru Member

    You fail to read the message - again. WRV54G UNACCEPTABLE

    Guyllfyre, it would do you some good to stop farting in the bathtub and biting the bubble that rises from beneath :) :) Methane will rot your brain and you're too young to have your brain cells corroded by drugs...
    If you can't get quickvpn to work, say so, and somebody will help, dude.

    You appear to be the one with brain rot. You keep pulling this "QuickVPN" line and that's got *NOTHING* to do with my issues as described.

    Here is where you are failing to read!!!

    I am *NOT* using QuickVPN. I am *NOT* behind a NAT device. I had attempted to use this unit as a router and VPN endpoint as it was advertised to do and it does not work as a VPN endpoint.

    Both this device and the other device are the internet facing devices with static IPs. No configuration of this device has been successful in connecting to the VPN. Linksys technical support has been less than helpful.

    This router also reboots randomly for no reason when the wireless is used. This happens with all firmware revisions I have tried, up to and including the 2.37 and 2.38 versions.

    Stop telling people that this is an acceptable piece of hardware. It is not.

    I scrounged a pile of parts out of my back office and built a SmoothWall Express 2.0 box that connected to the VPN first try. It doesn't have wireless but that isn't an issue at the moment.

    The SmoothWall has consistely stayed connected, not rebooted, and works as configured. Considering that it was "free" and I paid $140 for the LinkSys box, perhaps you can understand why I'm a bit peeved that I have a product that does not perform to it's advertised specs and LinkSys will only replace it with the same unit.

  11. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member


    again, the water is bubbling from flatulence. Put the "cheese and broccoli" down before your small colon splatters against the wall. I mean, my gawd man, look at how much space that's available as it is in here without your "green fog" floating through the forum.

    "You" have a personal grievance with a device the majority of us are "now" able to use based on some instructions put together through good old fashioned collaboration between linksysinfo members (TVOS and myself). I use the vpn with my WRV54G "constantly" and connect from wireless hotspots in coffee shops, airports, and consistently everyplace I go. No brain rot here, or hardware slapping me silly :D (Tch, I'm just playing...)

    Seriously, if you've got what you need, great. If you're ticked with me, I can live with that (I probably deserve it :thumb:) ; most of us are using a product that a lot of people gave up on but it's doing the job now. If you still can't make it work, the offer stands (for assistance). Otherwise, (Jamaican accent) "gon 'bout yo bizness, mon..."

  12. eric_stewart

    eric_stewart Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Nice turns of phrase but (tsk, tsk) flaming is flaming even if it doesn't ignite fizzy little bubbles of methane, you are being provocative. Shame.

    I personally understand Gullfyre's frustration but at the same time I use the WRV54G for site-to-site VPNs at several customer sites and with a variety of equipment including CheckPoint firewalls, SonicWall and Cisco PIX, and I've not had any issues with the 2.38* firmware. The QuickVPN software is neat, I've used it with (mostly) success, but I don't need it. Before I put a PIX 501 into my home network I tunneled a PPTP VPN through my WRV54G to an inside host instead of knocking my head against the remote-access IPSec VPN issues that pre-dated Linksys's release of QuickVPN. I'm not sure I agree with your theory that Linksys intentionally left out the NAT-T patch. I think that Linksys may be waiting for Jungo to get their thumb out and patch the Linux Free S/WAN app that they are using for IPSec.

    That said, I've had this thing for sometime now and have learned to live with its idiosynchrocies. I think it's like marriage, you have to really work at it to make it work and you tend to turn a blind eye to the little things that annoy you. Mind you, waiting over a year until a stable(ish) firmware comes out may be construed as somewhat unacceptable so while I don't agree with the poster's language, I do agree with his sentiment. The honeymoon is over.

    BTW, the US Robotics USR8200 uses the same Jungo OpenRG code and Intel xScale processor that our beloved WRV54G uses. Navigate over to dslreports.com and read about the angst that *it* has caused among its devoted followers. Makes one wonder if some of the issue lie with Linksys's (poor in restrospect) decision to use outsourced code.

    This is a seriously powerful device given its price point. Like a favourite child you get upset when Linksys doesn't strive to realize its potential. I particularly would like to see the code updated to support IEEE 802.11i (WPA2) as well as AES for the IPSec VPN stuff. The Intel CPU is architected to offload encryption to a separate hardware acceleration engine. I think it is under utilized.

  13. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    *HeH* I know, I know... :D I lapsed for a moment.

    Forgive me...

    (Slaps self on hand) *SLAP* Naughty, Naughty, Naughty...


Share This Page