Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
Paul
What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
Paul
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
I have been using Dl-614+ wireless route which has a firewall built in. I
have had no problems and all ports are stealth unless I am using the. It has
the ability to run vertical severs and a computer in a DMZ if you reed it.
The newer models have the same features. It can Email you a log of access
attempts so you can see any attacks.
Travis
"Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WUKhc.32$SV6.25@newsfe1-win...
> What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
>
> Paul
>
>
I have been using Dl-614+ wireless route which has a firewall built in. I
have had no problems and all ports are stealth unless I am using the. It has
the ability to run vertical severs and a computer in a DMZ if you reed it.
The newer models have the same features. It can Email you a log of access
attempts so you can see any attacks.
Travis
"Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WUKhc.32$SV6.25@newsfe1-win...
> What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
>
> Paul
>
>
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
Very good, feature rich and a good price. Highly recommended.
"Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WUKhc.32$SV6.25@newsfe1-win...
> What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
>
> Paul
>
>
Very good, feature rich and a good price. Highly recommended.
"Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WUKhc.32$SV6.25@newsfe1-win...
> What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
>
> Paul
>
>
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
Paul H wrote:
> What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
>
> Paul
>
>
My only experience is with Linksys product. I've tried, without success,
sot find good comparison information, via Google. Anyone know if there
is a good product comparison anywhere?
Paul H wrote:
> What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
>
> Paul
>
>
My only experience is with Linksys product. I've tried, without success,
sot find good comparison information, via Google. Anyone know if there
is a good product comparison anywhere?
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
The reason I ask the question is because I have had nothing but aggravation
with their products. I just wanted to see if it was just me, or maybe I just
expect to much. Here are a few examples:
The documentation they provide on how to set up DI-804HV and their DSL-300
together is technically inaccurate and therefore resulted in several calls
to support. The document has still not been changed although the problem was
eventually acknowledged after some eventually took the time to check what I
was talking about.
I have reported a bug in the DI-804HV to tech support both verbally and in
writing that they have acknowledged, yet done nothing about after several
weeks.
I was told prior to buying the DI-804HV that I could tunnel through it using
IPSEC whilst connecting to the LAN behind it using the built in winXP vpn
client. After buying four of these boxes for various clients, it turns out
this simply is not true, it doesn't work. Support have apologised for
misinforming me...(four hundred quid and countless wasted hours later).
I have several outstanding support incidents and unresolved problems, all I
am told is "someone will call you back"...they **NEVER** do.
In short I have never dealt with such disorganisation and misinformation...
you couldn't pay me enough to buy a d-link product again.
BTW, if you think I am just venting, go to the following link:
http://www.dlink.co.uk/pages/tech_support/vpn_routers_firewalls_overview_ts.asp
Ok, this is the UK tech support page for their routers click on the link for
"Latest Drivers/Firmwares" for the "DI-804HV"....good eh?
Paul
"Not-My-Real-Name" <someone@micros0ft.com> wrote in message
news
LPhc.3149$Xy3.12098@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> Very good, feature rich and a good price. Highly recommended.
>
> "Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:WUKhc.32$SV6.25@newsfe1-win...
> > What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
The reason I ask the question is because I have had nothing but aggravation
with their products. I just wanted to see if it was just me, or maybe I just
expect to much. Here are a few examples:
The documentation they provide on how to set up DI-804HV and their DSL-300
together is technically inaccurate and therefore resulted in several calls
to support. The document has still not been changed although the problem was
eventually acknowledged after some eventually took the time to check what I
was talking about.
I have reported a bug in the DI-804HV to tech support both verbally and in
writing that they have acknowledged, yet done nothing about after several
weeks.
I was told prior to buying the DI-804HV that I could tunnel through it using
IPSEC whilst connecting to the LAN behind it using the built in winXP vpn
client. After buying four of these boxes for various clients, it turns out
this simply is not true, it doesn't work. Support have apologised for
misinforming me...(four hundred quid and countless wasted hours later).
I have several outstanding support incidents and unresolved problems, all I
am told is "someone will call you back"...they **NEVER** do.
In short I have never dealt with such disorganisation and misinformation...
you couldn't pay me enough to buy a d-link product again.
BTW, if you think I am just venting, go to the following link:
http://www.dlink.co.uk/pages/tech_support/vpn_routers_firewalls_overview_ts.asp
Ok, this is the UK tech support page for their routers click on the link for
"Latest Drivers/Firmwares" for the "DI-804HV"....good eh?
Paul
"Not-My-Real-Name" <someone@micros0ft.com> wrote in message
news
LPhc.3149$Xy3.12098@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...> Very good, feature rich and a good price. Highly recommended.
>
> "Paul H" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:WUKhc.32$SV6.25@newsfe1-win...
> > What's the general opinion of D-link and there firewall/router products?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
In article <fE5ic.39$yd1.23@newsfe1-win>, nospam@nospam.com says...
> The reason I ask the question is because I have had nothing but aggravation
> with their products. I just wanted to see if it was just me, or maybe I just
> expect to much. Here are a few examples:
>
> The documentation they provide on how to set up DI-804HV and their DSL-300
> together is technically inaccurate and therefore resulted in several calls
> to support. The document has still not been changed although the problem was
> eventually acknowledged after some eventually took the time to check what I
> was talking about.
>
> I have reported a bug in the DI-804HV to tech support both verbally and in
> writing that they have acknowledged, yet done nothing about after several
> weeks.
>
> I was told prior to buying the DI-804HV that I could tunnel through it using
> IPSEC whilst connecting to the LAN behind it using the built in winXP vpn
> client. After buying four of these boxes for various clients, it turns out
> this simply is not true, it doesn't work. Support have apologised for
> misinforming me...(four hundred quid and countless wasted hours later).
It sounds like you could have other problems than the D-Link, can you
describe the networks that you have configured and how things are setup.
A basic NAT router will let you VPN out to another location without any
problems, but you want both private subnets to be different - meaning
that if your local is 192.168.0.x and the other one is 192.168.0.x you
are going to have problems. If you were meaning that you can use your
local resources while VPN'd into the remote location, then it's only an
issue of setting the "Use default gateway" option on your side.
It's a common mistake for people using these cheap routers to NOT put
each one in it's own unique subnet that is different from their own
local subnet.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
In article <fE5ic.39$yd1.23@newsfe1-win>, nospam@nospam.com says...
> The reason I ask the question is because I have had nothing but aggravation
> with their products. I just wanted to see if it was just me, or maybe I just
> expect to much. Here are a few examples:
>
> The documentation they provide on how to set up DI-804HV and their DSL-300
> together is technically inaccurate and therefore resulted in several calls
> to support. The document has still not been changed although the problem was
> eventually acknowledged after some eventually took the time to check what I
> was talking about.
>
> I have reported a bug in the DI-804HV to tech support both verbally and in
> writing that they have acknowledged, yet done nothing about after several
> weeks.
>
> I was told prior to buying the DI-804HV that I could tunnel through it using
> IPSEC whilst connecting to the LAN behind it using the built in winXP vpn
> client. After buying four of these boxes for various clients, it turns out
> this simply is not true, it doesn't work. Support have apologised for
> misinforming me...(four hundred quid and countless wasted hours later).
It sounds like you could have other problems than the D-Link, can you
describe the networks that you have configured and how things are setup.
A basic NAT router will let you VPN out to another location without any
problems, but you want both private subnets to be different - meaning
that if your local is 192.168.0.x and the other one is 192.168.0.x you
are going to have problems. If you were meaning that you can use your
local resources while VPN'd into the remote location, then it's only an
issue of setting the "Use default gateway" option on your side.
It's a common mistake for people using these cheap routers to NOT put
each one in it's own unique subnet that is different from their own
local subnet.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
We don't allow Dlink routers where I work to use in people's home
either. Only Netgear and Linksys seem to work okay with our VPN
client.
It's not just you.
We don't allow Dlink routers where I work to use in people's home
either. Only Netgear and Linksys seem to work okay with our VPN
client.
It's not just you.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
I have no problems using Dlinks or Netscreens for IPSec VPN connectivity.
Most problems we've encountered have been relating to M$ networking relying
on UDP Kerberos authentication, switching them to TCP authentication only
fixed these.
What problems did you have?
"Rob" <bobh1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newse2i80hcccil3j0tvq8t3jhmdmppc197gm@4ax.com...
> We don't allow Dlink routers where I work to use in people's home
> either. Only Netgear and Linksys seem to work okay with our VPN
> client.
>
> It's not just you.
>
I have no problems using Dlinks or Netscreens for IPSec VPN connectivity.
Most problems we've encountered have been relating to M$ networking relying
on UDP Kerberos authentication, switching them to TCP authentication only
fixed these.
What problems did you have?
"Rob" <bobh1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news
e2i80hcccil3j0tvq8t3jhmdmppc197gm@4ax.com...> We don't allow Dlink routers where I work to use in people's home
> either. Only Netgear and Linksys seem to work okay with our VPN
> client.
>
> It's not just you.
>
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
Sounds like the problems I had with SMC.
Can you describe in further detail what problems are you having?
Can you build the tunnel?
Is it a I can't "browse" the M$ network inside? Can't map drives?
We had the same trouble and it wasn't DNS/WINS related, it was M$ Kerberos
related.
Sounds like the problems I had with SMC.
Can you describe in further detail what problems are you having?
Can you build the tunnel?
Is it a I can't "browse" the M$ network inside? Can't map drives?
We had the same trouble and it wasn't DNS/WINS related, it was M$ Kerberos
related.
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
I have resolved pretty much all of the problems I had.
To cut a **VERY ** long story short....
Most of the problems were caused by:
1. poor or incomplete help files
2. poor documentation on the website
3. Support staff do not know the products well enough
Thanks to all who posted on this.
Paul
> Sounds like the problems I had with SMC.
>
> Can you describe in further detail what problems are you having?
> Can you build the tunnel?
> Is it a I can't "browse" the M$ network inside? Can't map drives?
> We had the same trouble and it wasn't DNS/WINS related, it was M$ Kerberos
> related.
>
>
>
I have resolved pretty much all of the problems I had.
To cut a **VERY ** long story short....
Most of the problems were caused by:
1. poor or incomplete help files
2. poor documentation on the website
3. Support staff do not know the products well enough
Thanks to all who posted on this.
Paul
> Sounds like the problems I had with SMC.
>
> Can you describe in further detail what problems are you having?
> Can you build the tunnel?
> Is it a I can't "browse" the M$ network inside? Can't map drives?
> We had the same trouble and it wasn't DNS/WINS related, it was M$ Kerberos
> related.
>
>
>
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af2c84ab453384698a41b@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <fE5ic.39$yd1.23@newsfe1-win>, nospam@nospam.com says...
> > The reason I ask the question is because I have had nothing but
aggravation
> > with their products. I just wanted to see if it was just me, or maybe I
just
> > expect to much. Here are a few examples:
> >
> > The documentation they provide on how to set up DI-804HV and their
DSL-300
> > together is technically inaccurate and therefore resulted in several
calls
> > to support. The document has still not been changed although the problem
was
> > eventually acknowledged after some eventually took the time to check
what I
> > was talking about.
> >
> > I have reported a bug in the DI-804HV to tech support both verbally and
in
> > writing that they have acknowledged, yet done nothing about after
several
> > weeks.
> >
> > I was told prior to buying the DI-804HV that I could tunnel through it
using
> > IPSEC whilst connecting to the LAN behind it using the built in winXP
vpn
> > client. After buying four of these boxes for various clients, it turns
out
> > this simply is not true, it doesn't work. Support have apologised for
> > misinforming me...(four hundred quid and countless wasted hours later).
>
> It sounds like you could have other problems than the D-Link, can you
> describe the networks that you have configured and how things are setup.
> A basic NAT router will let you VPN out to another location without any
> problems, but you want both private subnets to be different - meaning
> that if your local is 192.168.0.x and the other one is 192.168.0.x you
> are going to have problems. If you were meaning that you can use your
> local resources while VPN'd into the remote location, then it's only an
> issue of setting the "Use default gateway" option on your side.
>
> It's a common mistake for people using these cheap routers to NOT put
> each one in it's own unique subnet that is different from their own
> local subnet.
Thanks for your post, but subnets were not an issue in this instance. The
problems were caused by extremely poor communication and documentation on
D-links part.
Paul
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af2c84ab453384698a41b@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <fE5ic.39$yd1.23@newsfe1-win>, nospam@nospam.com says...
> > The reason I ask the question is because I have had nothing but
aggravation
> > with their products. I just wanted to see if it was just me, or maybe I
just
> > expect to much. Here are a few examples:
> >
> > The documentation they provide on how to set up DI-804HV and their
DSL-300
> > together is technically inaccurate and therefore resulted in several
calls
> > to support. The document has still not been changed although the problem
was
> > eventually acknowledged after some eventually took the time to check
what I
> > was talking about.
> >
> > I have reported a bug in the DI-804HV to tech support both verbally and
in
> > writing that they have acknowledged, yet done nothing about after
several
> > weeks.
> >
> > I was told prior to buying the DI-804HV that I could tunnel through it
using
> > IPSEC whilst connecting to the LAN behind it using the built in winXP
vpn
> > client. After buying four of these boxes for various clients, it turns
out
> > this simply is not true, it doesn't work. Support have apologised for
> > misinforming me...(four hundred quid and countless wasted hours later).
>
> It sounds like you could have other problems than the D-Link, can you
> describe the networks that you have configured and how things are setup.
> A basic NAT router will let you VPN out to another location without any
> problems, but you want both private subnets to be different - meaning
> that if your local is 192.168.0.x and the other one is 192.168.0.x you
> are going to have problems. If you were meaning that you can use your
> local resources while VPN'd into the remote location, then it's only an
> issue of setting the "Use default gateway" option on your side.
>
> It's a common mistake for people using these cheap routers to NOT put
> each one in it's own unique subnet that is different from their own
> local subnet.
Thanks for your post, but subnets were not an issue in this instance. The
problems were caused by extremely poor communication and documentation on
D-links part.
Paul
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 59
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram