A Test for Possible Vista Transfer Issue and Networking Stack Support

[shaihulud]

For those who are experience transfer issues with Vista, there is a website that can check your router to see if it can work with Vista’s networking stack. Note, this will only work with Vista’s stack, as in, detecting the possible scale issue with routers. Windows XP it can detect some important characteristics of your router still.

Internet Connectivity Evaluation Tool

[SpeedDMN]

Nice find. All seems to be "supported" so I guess that's good..

[shaihulud]

If you noticed at the bottom of the page there is a result link that is very vebose. What router do you use?

[SpeedDMN]

I have a linksys WRT54G. Both here and where I mainly live.

[shaihulud]

WRT54G in the latter versions is nothing but embedded Linux so it should support scaling with no issue. Linux is intrinsically auto tune.

[SRTDodge05]

Thats doesnt tell you much at all. All my routers pass and i still have transfer issue. Another way is to just unplug your router and use a crossover cable or a switch.

[shaihulud]

At the bottom of the result page is a link to the results in a verbose manner.

[Gorganzola]

Looks like mine worked out fine. It's a D-Link DGL-4300. Mine didn't pass the UPnP test when I tried, but that is only because I had UPnP turned off. Things are working just fine with the way I need them and if I need ports opened, I'll be happy to do it.

I attached my results in a textfile.

[shaihulud]

Yes, the DGL-4300 is a good router and works with Vista so you should not have an issue, as I did not. I have the very router and recently upgraded to the DGL-4500. It is a difference.

You do realize though that your possible feelings of being insecure with UPnP are a misunderstanding. The very action of you sending a packet makes you vulnerable. A particular version of NAT, which the DGL-4300 is not, actually opens you way up when you trigger the activity and allows most and almost all ports through. But this is not how forwarding works, it’s more like DMZ’ish

Nothing is wrong or is more insecure with UPnP. Actually, it can be better since it is a trigger and therefore can happen from host to host dynamically. Forward only goes to one host and can create issues when multiple hosts need access to the same port. Just remember the ultimate fact is that networking is not secure by default. Just using it is the worst thing you can do and will make you vulnerable. At least UPnP needs a trigger before it opens. You already pulled it on 53 and 80 when you DNS and HTTP.

[ATINUT]

I've got the Belkin F5D7230-4 Wireless G router. It works great with Windows Vista.

[Gorganzola]

True, true, but nothing I use needs UPnP so why enable something I don't use.

What differences have you found with the DGL-4500? What processor does it use?

Originally Posted by shaihulud

Yes, the DGL-4300 is a good router and works with Vista so you should not have an issue, as I did not. I have the very router and recently upgraded to the DGL-4500. It is a difference.

You do realize though that your possible feelings of being insecure with UPnP are a misunderstanding. The very action of you sending a packet makes you vulnerable. A particular version of NAT, which the DGL-4300 is not, actually opens you way up when you trigger the activity and allows most and almost all ports through. But this is not how forwarding works, it’s more like DMZ’ish

Nothing is wrong or is more insecure with UPnP. Actually, it can be better since it is a trigger and therefore can happen from host to host dynamically. Forward only goes to one host and can create issues when multiple hosts need access to the same port. Just remember the ultimate fact is that networking is not secure by default. Just using it is the worst thing you can do and will make you vulnerable. At least UPnP needs a trigger before it opens. You already pulled it on 53 and 80 when you DNS and HTTP.

[shaihulud]

There is a difference in speed and much of it is due to the difference in architecture. Many things can be done in hardware now such as CRC generation and SPI when comparing the IP5000 class processor (4500) to the IP3000 class processor (4300). Oddly enough, I even think the Realtek layer 2 is better than the Broadcom layer 2 of the DGL-4300. SmallNetBuilder did a recent review and the DGL-4500 has some very high marks in throughput.

There are a couple of issues that are firmware related, but these are either cosmetic or very minor. For example, firmware 1.02 you cannot check the statistics of the packets. Wireless link, if wireless is disabled, cannot send you to the link since it is disabled. Once wireless is enabled you can go to the linked page. Matter of fact wireless can be enabled and disabled dynamically without a reboot.

I do not really shop at Circuit City often at all, but there was a rebate of $50 for the router. This lowered the cost to $150 and felt reasonable enough as a Christmas present. I have been very pleased with it.

The DGL-4500 uses the IP5160 processor: Ubicom : Processors : StreamEngine 5000™ Family

A bit if a review: SmallNetBuilder - D-Link Dual-band 11n for the impatient: DGL-4500 Reviewed