WRV54G Upgrade Action Bandwagon

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by DocLarge, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member


    I just threw together a rant I've just sent to as many Linksys/Cisco related email addresses I had available regarding the discussion the past few days of how we've been "duped" with the WRV54G. I quoted some key information from TaZ and Eric_Stewart to get the ball rolling.

    I, myself, plan on sending this email no less than "5 times" a day just to get someones attention. By the way I don't plan on sending it to those I addressed in the CC field this email, just all Linksys and CISCO entities. Hey, if they get mad, then they'll share my disgust with the level of functionality "not" available for this "shimmering turd" we all bought. :)

    Here's the email I sent...


    it's come to the point where some type of action needs to be taken.

    I personally have "two" WRV54Gs. Each cost over a couple of hundred dollars and they are both still missing NAT-T, GRE, and AES. The old Linksys BEFVP41 could do NAT-T and GRE as a minimum, but the WRV54G has never had this capability. For those of us in business for ourselves, WE NEED THIS!!

    Here are the specs other engineers/users have gathered about the WRV54G:

    - According to a Tolly Group whitepaper, the WRV54G has clear-text throughput of over 65 Mbps LAN to WAN and LAN to LAN

    - Encrypted mode throughput is comparable to cleartext throughput
    - Embedded hardware encryption engine for VPN acceleration as part of Intel XScale architecture
    - Hardware DMZ which makes the box into a 3-interface firewall
    - Syslog
    - 50 site-to-site & 5 remote access VPNs.
    - Hardware already supports AES, but the firmware doesn't

    - Free S/WAN (IPSec server engine) is patched to support NAT-T via the underlying Linux operating system but for obvious reasons (Linksys/Cisco internal product competition) this patch has never been enabled

    The WRV54G is a powerhouse waiting to happen but Linksys/Cisco has limited its capabilities because Cisco (as will be shown later) doesn't want competition for some of its similar solutions. This product "can do the work," period.

    It's been noticed by a WRV54G owner that "The WRV54G has a lot of statistics/features similar to a $3500 Cisco PIX 515E." Additionally, Cisco sells a device "extremely" similiar to the WRV54G called the 871W; this device does "everything" the WRV54G is supposed to, but because it is a direct Cisco product, it's got all the features enabled that Linksys "won't" enable on the WRV54G:

    http://www.superwarehouse.com/p.cfm?p=645250&CMP=KAC-PositionTechFeed (Cisco 871W)

    Minus the ability to handle QoS management, the Linksys WRV54G is "feature-for-feature" the same product as the Cisco 871W (unless I and others are viewing this wrong), but we, as linksys supporters shouldn't be shortchanged because of this, especially in the area of vpn. That is an internal distribution problem between Linksys and CISCO that shouldn't (but unfortunately does) involve us as consumers; we've all paid $180+ dollars for this device and, as a result, expect a certain level of service. A majority of us bought this device based on the vpn functionality alone, and we've gotten partial vpn functionality at best with the WRV54G's "sometimes I'll work" quickvpn solution. It's great when it works, but all factors on having it operational depends upon the applications the end user already has configured on their computer, which more times than not result in conflict with quickvpn.

    To make matters worse, due to NAT-T and GRE not being supported, you can't use third party software with this router or configure a vpn server behind it "unless" you buy another router that has NAT-T and GRE enabled and put that router "in front" of the WRV54G, followed by connecting the WRV54G behind that router. The cost of this workaround: $180 or better depending upon the solution you find (of course, price does not include the $180 it cost to purchase the WRV54G by itself). For the price we as WRV54G owners paid for purchasing the WRV54G, we should already have this capability with our original purchase...

    As stated by another owner of the WRV54G, "Linksys sold this as a premier product, costing about 60% more than the WRT54G, and yet it doesn't have the feature set to justify that label. In hindsight a WRT54G with one of the third party firmwares would have been a better option."

    We're all in agreeance this is an "intentional act" on Linksys's part to lure consumers into sale's yet deprive us of these necessary features in today's marketplace in order to push the quickvpn software that "works on occasion" depending upon the configuration of the client computer attempting to make the connection.

    Personally, I purchased the 50 User License Quickvpn Upgrade for (estimated cost of $150) and the firmware was faulty. Version 2.37E. of quickvpn was based on the same WRV54G 2.37 firmware that had a broken feature for the internal PPTP server; basically, you couldn't synchronize the encryption/algorithm features of phase I and phase II of the vpn tunnel configuration, yet Linksys still packaged and sold this in the 50 client user quickvpn upgrade package. I wasn't aware of this until I'd loaded the upgrade and saw that I was no longer able to use the internal 50 tunnel PPTP server. THIS IS STILL YET TO BE FIXED AND I'VE LOST $150 ON THIS PARTICULAR PURCHASE! The proof is in the firmware version that I can make available to you "to include" the firmware version I have on the 50 user upgrade disk I purchased should you need to see the facts.

    To furthermore add to this debacle, there has been "no" official firmware release for the WRV54G since November of 2004. If you're not going to update any features, why keep selling it? Because, it's got a sleek look, plenty of promise (that is being promised if purchased) to enhance your infrastructure, and for what you're paying for, the price is superb, yet delivery of the feature set isn't.

    Linksys has willfully deceived myself, and all other WRV54G users by "not" providing the functionality this device claims to offer. We, as WRV54G owners, would like the following features "we paid for" enabled in an officially released firmware:

    1) Enabled NAT-T support

    2) Enabled AES support

    3) Enabled capability of the WRV54G to pass protocol 47 (GRE)

    4) Fix the broken PPTP server in firmware 2.37 and Quickvpn 50 client user license firmware 2.37E so it's operational in the next official version

    As corny as this may sound, "this is owed to some of us" who've supported this product from the start and still continue to do so through www.linksysinfo.org and the associated forum:


    We're all tired of providing "workarounds" because Linksys level 1 tech support doesn't know the product other than from reading about it online when we call for assistance or trolling our forums for the fixes "we" provide. The very quickvpn page you have listed on your quickvpn help site came from what "I and various WRV54G forum users" provided, so that should be good for at least "two" firmware fixes, in all fairness... :)

    In closing, WRV54G owners are just asking for the functionality that was promised at the time of purchase that still has yet to be delivered.

    Jon K. Johnson a.ka. "Doclarge"
  2. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    The Typical Linksys Reply...

    As was expected, here's the email I got back from a Linksys level 1 tech who has no decision making capability "yet" all the promises in the world....


    Response (Patricia L(15130)) 03/12/2006 10:01 AM
    Dear Jay,

    Thank you for contacting Linksys Customer Support.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to give us such valuable feedback. Rest assured that I will forward your concern to the proper department so that the next release of the firmware would have those features. As of this writing, I cannot give you a definite time on when the firmware would be released. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this has caused.

    Thank you and have a nice day.

    You may visit our knowledge base at www.linksys.com/kb for other concerns and basic troubleshooting of your Linksys product/s.


    Patricia Joana T. Lagniton
    Badge ID 15130
    Product Support Specialist
    Linksys- A Division of Cisco Systems, Inc.

    This correspondence is considered confidential and any reproduction for the purpose of public disclosure is forbidden without written permission by the author signed above.

    If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender and delete any copies. Please keep all previous emails as a point of reference.

    Of course, I had a response...



    thanks for your response.

    Unfortunately, the response you've given is indicative of why I and other WRV54G owners are making this complaint and no longer easily swayed. Your "quick to apologize" yet "prompt to reassure" responses serve no purpose to people who have waited 16 months for new firmware and and spent a few hundred dollars on an appliance that has fallen short.

    As always, "no one" can say when there's going to be an official response when an email inquiry into updated WRV54G firmware is made. The promise for new official firmware has become "old hat" at this juncture. The "spirit of intent" has been lost, and nothing is being done on the part of Linksys/Cisco to ensure any progress. Netgear, as an example has official firmware release within months of each other for one of their home flagship products (DG834G ADSL VPN Firewall Router), yet Linksys needs almost 18 months to release "one" new firmware upgrade for a product that was touted to be "all the router" a small business would need?

    I now realize whoever else who reads this email is just a "tier 1" technician who has no influence on whether or not anything will be done, so I'm not holding out on expecting someone with any influence to act on my emails right away. Therefore, I intend to continue emailing all Linksys/Cisco support entities until someone can give an answer as to the reason why the WRV54G doesn't work as advertised and why an acceptable level of firmware has not been generated in almost 16 months.

    By all means, pass this email to your supervision, because this is sure to be a pursued course of action until Linksys/Cisco can correct this problem by making available what I and the other WRV54G owners paid over $180 for:

    1) Enabled NAT-T support

    2) Enabled AES support

    3) Enabled capability of the WRV54G to pass protocol 47 (GRE)

    4) Fix the broken PPTP server in firmware 2.37 and Quickvpn 50 client user license firmware 2.37E so it's operational in the next official version

    I plan on logging each occurrence of my sending emails to "all" helpdesks asking for assistance regarding "corrected firmware for the WRV54G" in order to provide this information to other entities should no action be taken in a timely manner to correct what appears to be an "intentional grounding" of this product.

    This request from the WRV54G community and myself is nothing more than an attempt to obtain the service we paid for that we've yet to receive with this product, that's all...

    I thank you for listening to me as a valued customer and hope you can make restitution on your promise to provide the best merchandise you can.

    Jon K. Johnson a.k.a. "Doclarge"

    The "Quest" continues.

  3. jdepew

    jdepew Administrator Staff Member Member


    I'm going to forward this on to some of the folks I've met at Linksys that are a little more directly involved with where this needs issue needs to be addressed. I'll let you know what happens with my contacts.

  4. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    Thanks for getting my back on this one, J.D....

    I sent the same email out again, as I stated I would do, and as usual, here's the standard apologetic response followed by a "reassurrance" that the email will be "forwarded" on to someone who will "supposedly" take some sort of action. "We" know this is an automated messaging procedure generated by the level 1 tech, but at what point on time does this "action" become one?

    Response (Julius D(13375)) 03/12/2006 11:58 PM
    Dear Jon,

    Thank you for contacting Linksys Technical Support.

    We appreciate your time in giving us your feedback. Please accept our apology for the inconvenience you have experienced. We will forward this to the upper management. Rest assured that we will take action to improve our products and services to better meet your needs.

    If you have further questions, please send us an E-mail at support@linksys.com so that we may further assist you. You may also visit our knowledge base website at www.linksys.com/kb.


    Julius M. Diona
    Badge ID: 13375
    Linksys – A Division of Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Product Support Specialist
    Website: http://www.Linksys.com
    Network Setup: http://www.linksys.com/edu/

    This correspondence is considered confidential and any reproduction for the purpose of public disclosure is forbidden without written permission by the author signed above.

    Does anyone remember that song from the '80s by the group "Naked Eyes?" *Ahem*

    You made me, promises, promises (da-ta-dadada) you knew you couldn't keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep....

    As of now, I am going to keep providing a link to linksysinfo.org to all linksys/cisco support functions each time I receive a response back from the level 1 technician (they get another email from me).

    Why not immortalize them, eh? Nothing better than highlighting how good a business's customer service function is :D

    Of course, I felt compelled to respond...


    thank you for your reply, but your "procedurally recorded response" validates that your good intentions will go without action because "upper management" has been contacted on this matter "repeatedly" since November 2004, and nothing has been done about it as of yet.

    So, as to ensure "upper management" receives yet another request they may or may not act on (but they might want to consider it seeing there's going to be some press invovement from popular magazines that are being notified of Linksys's "lack of conviction toward their paying customers), someone "might want to print out this email" and hand carry it to someone who can "at the very least" talk to somebody who can make the following request happen for the WRV54G in a new firmware release for 2006 (preferably before June of this year because a lof of us run businesses):

    1) Enabled NAT-T support

    2) Enabled AES support

    3) Enabled capability of the WRV54G to pass protocol 47 (GRE)

    4) Fix the broken PPTP server in firmware 2.37 and Quickvpn 50 client user license firmware 2.37E so it's operational in the next official version

    The below link is where I am posting each response from your organizations as to allow a "living record" of how much Linksys/Cisco "is" or "is not" of any assistance in this matter:


    While you're forwarding this email, please make sure your forward this information also:

    The WRV54G community is merely looking for restitution of services yet to be rendered upon our separate purchases of the WRV54G. The addition of the above mentioned firmware fixes is all that we ask for, being that's what was promised at the time of purchase, and we've yet to receive.

    Jon K. Johnson a.k.a. "Doclarge"
    (Doc straightens his hair, and re-adjusts his *business* in preparation for guests)

    Smile folks, we're having Linksys for company!!! :)

  5. chris547

    chris547 Network Guru Member


    The only problem with your complaints is that it looks like your trying to compare disimilar products. As I mentioned on the WRV54G yahoo group it's hardly far to blame Linksys/Cisco that their products don't perform the same when they are not. It's a bit like comparing a Skoda with a Porche and complaining their not the same. :rofl:

    I think you'll find you get a beter response if you complained that Linksys products are not as good as their competitors. Linksys are never going to complete with their Parent company Cisco! :thumbdown: D-Link has a similar router the DI-824VUP+, although it doesn't have all the functions you want it does have NAT-T that works and extra functions the WRV54G doesn't (although in the WRV54G GPL code there are these functions but not enabled in the firmware)

    Also there's the fact that the WRV54G is running obsolete code (namely freeswan). Since the freeswan project closed there has been various updates to the code, with it breaking into openswan and strongswan. As I mentioned on the yahoo group there's been some vulnerabilities that have been cleaned since freeswan 1.99 and perhaps it might be possible to claim that the WRV54G is not secure and demand it be upgraded to Openswan.

    Also there's the fact that Quickvpn seems to be intergrated into freeswan. I suspect that a lot of work would have to be done to intergrate Quickvpn back into Openswan. As you mentioned Linksys sell a 50 client Quickvpn which in effect does the same as NAT-T (although only on certain platforms) so Linksys are going to be very reluctant to add modifications that will remove one of their paying projects.

    It seems far more easier to get these modifcations if you can either prove that Linksys products are inferiour to their competitors than trying to get them to compeat with themselves or to prove that theres features are bug fixes than a product upgrade. :thumbup:

  6. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member


    take a look at a new thread I'm starting in regards to the WRV54G's capability. This thing is more of a monster than I or anyone else has possibly considered...

  7. chris547

    chris547 Network Guru Member


    I'm just pointing out that the way your complaining is perhaps not the best. Linksys doesn't think there's anything wrong with the WRV54G, they've got money invested in Quickvpn and they're not going to do anything that's going to jeperdise that and a Cisco/Linksys product war is never going to happen! Linksys probably doesn't care if their products are beter or worse than Cisco, their now the same company and unless there's a financial reason like it's cheaper to merge a Cisco and Linksys project or a competitor has a cheaper improved similar product nothings going to be done.

    Also as I mentioned on the Yahoo group Sky customers in the UK who have had software problems with their digiboxes have got far beter results complaining to the equivilent of the CEO of Sky than they ever did complaining to technical support. Perhaps your complaints should be aimed at the CEO of cisco!
  8. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member


    there's action going on all around you. I don't mind if you see something wrong with the tactic, but the support building behind this effort says otherwise. Until such time occurs, we'll let Linksys and Cisco give us their official standpoint on their product...

    Oh, don't worry, Linksys stateside is open for business, and that's my next direction.

    Here's some good reading:

    http://www.tolly.com/TS/2003/Intel ...rs/TollyTS203141IntelIXP425-IXP42018Dec03.pdf
    Don't mind the rest of us, we're after some firmware...

  9. RevelationCS

    RevelationCS Guest

    Be rather interesting to see how they would react if the BBB or a state consumer protection agency were to get involved. Seems rather fraudulent of them to be advertising certain features with a product only for it to not perform the way that one would expect..

    *wonders what fun Elliot Spitzer would have with this one*
  10. chris547

    chris547 Network Guru Member

    Actually to legally sell the wrv54g in the European Union Linksys should really clearly mark their boxes Windows 2000/XP only since that's the requirements of Quickvpn and the router doesn't fully function as advertised without it.
  11. chris547

    chris547 Network Guru Member

    Has anybody looked at the Linksys Voice System 9000 on the frontpage? Doesn't it look highly similar to the Cisco 7960! Sort of blows Doc's Linksys / Cisco non competitence conspiracy theory out the water and seems to more suguest Cisco = Large business, Linksys = Small Business / Home user.
  12. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member


    when you do take a look at it, it kinda...."does not."

    Companies pay millions to push "deals" as well as "market" propaganda; you "market the right deal" to create the right "propoganda (which = dogma), none are the wiser or even "overly concerned" if another product hasn't met it's potential as advertised.

    Go ahead, follow the next "big marketing machine" and remember to open wide when the trousers drop to inject the next marketing campaign; I'll stay focused on the issue at hand, firmware for the WRV54G.

    The can't pull the wool over everyone's eyes...

    By the way, the "WRV54G Firmware" story has been undertaken by "Linux Journal." I've been asked to gather some facts from anyone wishing to contribute regarding problems with the WRV54G. It's become apparent, discrepancies with this unit is "not" making it to the appropriate offices that need this information. Yeah, as ridiculous as it sounds, "customer feedback" is better known by the retailers as opposed to the makers.

    Look for the thread entitled [WRV54G] What's Your Complaint?;" this information will be made available to the writer of the article to get the word out.

  13. chris547

    chris547 Network Guru Member

    These two phones were certainly separated at birth there's the original Cisco 7960 and then the new
    Linksys SPA942 .

    The SPA942 sure looks like a cut down version with Linksys stamped all over it to me. Personally I think the Linksys / Cisco merger is a good thing, if you think trying to get firmware out of Linksys is hard just try getting existing firmware for a second hand 7960 out of Cisco ! It would sure be easier if we could have Cisco's product development but keep Linksys's product sales.
  14. sr1010

    sr1010 Guest

    WRV54G PPTP (GRE Blocked)

    Linksys support page says all you need to do is the following. Obviously it doesn't work for the WRV54G. No mention of needing to turn on Software DMZ for the WRV54G. Given the public information on their website doesn not indicate, that I can find, that this should not work on the WRV54G I hope they fix this.


    Microsoft uses IP Protocol 47 [GRE] for this secure tunnel. Provided that the PPTP Pass Through is set to Enable on the Router's Filters page and port 1723 is forwarded to the VPN Server, the Router will allow authentication and remote access into your network.

    The router will also allow you access remote PPtP networks from behind the router providing the PPtP Passthrough is enabled on the router.

  15. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    It's a shame because the old BEFVP41 could pass GRE and do NAT-T. Quickvpn took a couple of steps back for the sake of a simple vpn solution.

    It looks like cisco/linksys has now and forever entered the "sales before service" arena....

  16. DongTran

    DongTran Network Guru Member

    I don't have that much experience with the ways of VPN.

    Having said that, I asked management to 'upgrade' to the WRV54G router to meet the VPN needs they had requested. Well the owner of this small biz tok their WRT54G home to use for his home network, after I had setup the wireless etc @ the office.

    Since the last few months I have not been able to get the QuickVPN whatever to work, I was tooling around and was able to get XP Pro VPN to work but NOT 2K3 VPN (the GRE stuff etc).

    So now, I think I'm going to go to CompUSA and buy a WRT54G router and kind of stealthily install it - hopefully they won't notice that I switched the routers. It's pretty embarassing when you make a business recommendation to buy a equipment only to find out the stuff you recommended doesn't really work. :sad:
  17. kisps

    kisps Network Guru Member

    Heh, the fact that the WRV54G is a VPN router, yet is not capable of being set up right out of the box for VPN, is insane. That alone should be enough for Linksys to do something about it, I lose faith in Linksys every passing hour. What is even more baffling, the beta release of the new firmware, which is the best version i've tried to date, was only available on the Chinese Linksys servers for weeks/months before they decided to put the same firmware on the US site. Just evaluate the blatant display of ignorance that Linksys is giving off for a medium-high end priced router. It is enough to make me wonder if some legal action should be taken against them, its one thing if they have one or two faulty products, but f*ck, pretty much every Linksys router I have owned has taken hours of reading threads on this site on how to fix very simple problems that one should not have to encounter. The WRV54G is like a Ferrari with a 90' Honda civic engine, why the hell don't they expand the possibilities of what is possible with their devices? I'm beyond mailing complaints to them, the only way things will change is if one could take legal actions against them, or if alternative firmware is coded for every linksys product.
  18. Toxic

    Toxic Administrator Staff Member

    if the next RV0xx firmwares are able to do NAT-T then i dont see why not it cannot be added.
  19. DocLarge

    DocLarge Super Moderator Staff Member Member

    I put this gripe together earlier this year. In the midst of my writing this, the WRV200 was going through it's testing phase. The WRV200 does all of those things the WRV54G wouldn't do plus more. The problem is that the WRV200 is unstable in a few areas the WRV54G never had issues with (configuring a site-to-site vpn tunnel, maintaining clock time).

    Linksys bought themselves an out from the WRV54G by creating the WRV200; now, they don't have to field complaints about the WRV54G not supporting NAT-T, GRE or AES. The reply can simply be, "If you need that functionality set, take a look at the WRV200."

    Oh yes, that is some bullsh*t....

    In the end, the griping resulted in 2.39.2, but as TAZ said, that didn't really fix too much (I'm still running 2.37.13 on my WRV54G because of the stability). Still, it would be excellent if NAT-T, AES, and GRE were opened up on the WRV54G platform...

  20. TazUk

    TazUk Network Guru Member

    Yes it is, it supports site-to-site tunnels over IPSEC and client-to-site via QuickVPN, so does what it says on the box. The problem comes if you want to use a different VPN client and the client PC is behind a NATed router. So it does do what they say it will do but maybe not in the way some people would like. Whether you think that is acceptable or not depends on who you are and what your requirements are, personally I'm not happy about it but I've learned to live with it.
  21. GuyllFyre

    GuyllFyre Network Guru Member

    WRV54g remains useless

    Well, I have a WRV54g, ranted about it here a few times and was never able to get it to function as the VPN endpoint on my hardware VPN setup for work. I relegated it for a WAP and even that was not acceptable as it consistently would fail under heavy load.

    I noticed the 2.39.2 firmware and was hoping it would actually fix more issues that would be useful but it doesn't seem that this unit will ever be up to snuff. I wasted a lot of cash on this unit only to end up not using it and putting a SmoothWall Express 2.0 box I built in place instead as firewall and VPN endpoint.

    I'm still bitter about the fact that this unit never worked as it was advertised for me. I wasn't expecting top of the line business quality from this unit but I was hoping for a reliable, easy to use, VPN endpoint, WAP, router. At this point, I'm goint to take a huge loss on it, flash it with the 2.39.2 firmware and sell it on ebay or something. It's not worth my sanity to try to get something to work when I have a solution that's more stable than I could hope for in a home solution. Last reboot on the SmoothWall was due to severe power outage. Prior to that it had been running more than 186 days straight with no issues whatsoever and happily connecting me to my work VPN.

    The only thing I lack on the SmoothWall is a WAP setup but at some point they'll make wireless support for the orange interface or I'll just buy a decent WAP to add on to the network.

    It's not a perfect solution as it attempts to start the VPN before pppoe is complete but on my home DSL, there is no pppoe and it simply links up. There's quite a few side projects available for this platform also to work around some of these issues.

    I reccomend to those willing to tinker a bit, to set up a SmoothWall Express 2.0 box to play with, you might be pleasantly suprised as to what it gives you for capabilities.

    My set up is a Pentium 233MMX, 96MB RAM, 4 GB Hard drive, and two Kingston KNE110TX nics. Tested throughput with SPI enabled (no web proxy cache) was around 40Mb/sec on straight file copy across the unit.

    As I said, not perfect out of the box for some uses but since it's an open source project, there's lots available for it.

    Hope you get somewhere with the WRV54g issue doc. I know this unit nearly made me cry after three days of working on it trying to get it to establish a simple point to point VPN tunnel with my work SonicWall VPN.

    In comes the SmoothWall box, 15 minutes of setup, a couple of fixes uploads, about 15 minutes of configuration...and lo and behold, I was connected to the work VPN and the internet and everything worked.

    I bought this Linksys unit after many years of using thier basic boxes and being pretty happy with them. I have two BEFSR11 boxes that are handy because they're simple and they just work. I can set them up to use for temporary connections and set up the software VPN client for the SonicWall behind it and it all works fine.

    I couldn't even get my SonicWall software client to work behind the WRV54g.

    The software VPN information here is helpful for those using it with the software but aren't useful for those of us attempting to set up a hardware tunnel between this device and another.

    I wish you luck with this, I don't have the time to deal with it. It's pretty much soured me on buying anything from LinkSys at this point.

    I'm just going to deal with the fact that I wasted my hard earned money on a product and it was so completely frustrting that I don't even want it in my house at this point.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice