«

Hi folks,

Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a decent
router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact that I'd been
using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and had absolutely no
complaints until....

Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one machine to
another and elected to do it via the network. Both machines are 'wired',
using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man it was going slowly so I
checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!

Further checking resulted in the discovery that the router only supports
10/100 ethernet. Am I the only person who finds that odd in a new model that
supports full 'n' wireless (rather than the '150n' cheapies) which is
supposed to top out at 300Mbps and all of the computers in daily use in the
house (most dated from 2006/7) have gigabit ethernet? Why would you make a
router that has the fastest currently available wireless then knobble it
with 4 ancient 10/100 ethernet ports when gigabit ethernet has been the
standard for nearly a decade?

Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit 'switch'
and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh webs to it. I
dislike running multiple devices when it's possible that one could have
handled all that is required.

Just stream-of-consciousness rambling, a break from endless talking about
Dotcom.....
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

In article <k4tibm$o39$>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a decent
>router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact that I'd been
>using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and had absolutely no
>complaints until....
>Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one machine to
>another and elected to do it via the network. Both machines are 'wired',
>using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man it was going slowly so I
>checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!

That's only a factor of 3 Shaun ... how did you notice ?
I think that is the one Actrix sent me. Yes I'm new to what passes for
broadband in NZ, but it seems plenty fast to me.

On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:
>
> Further checking resulted in the discovery that the router only supports
> 10/100 ethernet. Am I the only person who finds that odd in a new model that
> supports full 'n' wireless (rather than the '150n' cheapies) which is
> supposed to top out at 300Mbps and all of the computers in daily use in the
> house (most dated from 2006/7) have gigabit ethernet? Why would you make a
> router that has the fastest currently available wireless then knobble it
> with 4 ancient 10/100 ethernet ports when gigabit ethernet has been the
> standard for nearly a decade?
>
> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit 'switch'
> and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh webs to it. I
> dislike running multiple devices when it's possible that one could have
> handled all that is required.
>
Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you need
to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance apart).

Cheers,

Cliff

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Enkidu wrote:
> On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:
[snip]
>> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit
>> 'switch' and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh
>> webs to it. I dislike running multiple devices when it's possible
>> that one could have handled all that is required.
>>
> Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you
> need to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance
> apart).

Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using external
HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs that the DHCP
router allocated to them?

Cheers,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <k4tibm$o39$>, "~misfit~"
> <> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a
>> decent router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact
>> that I'd been using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and
>> had absolutely no complaints until....
>> Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one
>> machine to another and elected to do it via the network. Both
>> machines are 'wired', using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man
>> it was going slowly so I checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!
>
> That's only a factor of 3 Shaun ... how did you notice ?

LOL, I noticed when the 'copy' window said that there was 1 day and 15 hours
remaining.

> I think that is the one Actrix sent me. Yes I'm new to what passes for
> broadband in NZ, but it seems plenty fast to me.

It's quite a nice router - other than the speed of the ethernet ports.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

~misfit~ <> wrote:

> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Enkidu wrote:
> > On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit
> >> 'switch' and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed teh
> >> webs to it. I dislike running multiple devices when it's possible
> >> that one could have handled all that is required.
> >>
> > Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you
> > need to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance
> > apart).
>
> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using external
> HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs that the DHCP
> router allocated to them?

As soon as you unplug the cable, the DHCP lease should be dropped as the
network will have gone down.

When you plug in using a direct connection, both PCs should recognise
there is a valid connection, try to find the DHCP server, eventually
give up, and use self-assigned IP addresses instead (in the
169.254.xxx.yyy range, with the last two octets typically being derived
from a hash of the MAC address or reassigned randomly if a conflict is
detected).

--
David Empson

Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
>> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
>> that the DHCP router allocated to them?
>
> You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
> them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
> grief.

Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. I've been thinking about
assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do* mean odd <g>)
who expects DHCP.

Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I mean,
USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3 periphs - however I
*do* have a couple eSATA docks.

Cheers,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

Somewhere on teh intarwebs David Empson wrote:
> ~misfit~ <> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Enkidu wrote:
>>> On 08/10/12 16:46, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> Damn! Looks like I'm going to have to start looking for a gigabit
>>>> 'switch' and just use one of the NB604N's ethernet ports to feed
>>>> teh webs to it. I dislike running multiple devices when it's
>>>> possible that one could have handled all that is required.
>>>>
>>> Shaun, just connect them back to back on the odd occasion that you
>>> need to transfer bulk data (assuming they are a reasonable distance
>>> apart).
>>
>> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
>> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
>> that the DHCP router allocated to them?
>
> As soon as you unplug the cable, the DHCP lease should be dropped as
> the network will have gone down.
>
> When you plug in using a direct connection, both PCs should recognise
> there is a valid connection, try to find the DHCP server, eventually
> give up, and use self-assigned IP addresses instead (in the
> 169.254.xxx.yyy range, with the last two octets typically being
> derived from a hash of the MAC address or reassigned randomly if a
> conflict is detected).

Thanks David, as I suspected (but, ever the optomist...), chaos would rule
without a DHCP server.

Cheers,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:44:04 +1300
"~misfit~" <> wrote:

> Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
> > On 9/10/2012 5:30 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Cliff, I'll likely do that in future - or go back to using
> >> external HDDs. Hmmm.... I assume that the PCs will retain the IPs
> >> that the DHCP router allocated to them?
> >
> > You assume incorrectly. Set them static to go back to back, or let
> > them do the nasty 169..... thing which seems to cause nothing but
> > grief.
>
> Hmmm, yeah, I thought that might happen. I've been thinking
> about assigning static IPs but I have the odd visitor (and I *do*
> mean odd <g>) who expects DHCP.
>
> Oh well, I just ordered a cheapie Expresscard eSATA thingy from DX. I
> mean, USB3 is probably the way to go but I don't have any USB3
> periphs - however I *do* have a couple eSATA docks.
>
> Cheers,
Hi
Just configure up a small range of addresses for your dhcp network eg
xxx.xxx.xxx.240 xxx.xxx.xxx.250, set your static ip's below
xxx.xxx.xxx.240

Can you not configure static ip's based on MAC address in the router?


--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 12.2 (x86_64) Kernel 3.4.6-2.10-desktop
up 15:31, 3 users, load average: 0.86, 0.99, 1.20
CPU Intel i5 CPU M520@2.40GHz | Intel Arrandale GPU

In article <k509br$s5p$>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
>Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <k4tibm$o39$>, "~misfit~"
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> Some of you may remember that I asked for opinions about what was a
>>> decent router with 'n' wireless a while back, expressing the fact
>>> that I'd been using NetComm and liked them. I bought an NB604N and
>>> had absolutely no complaints until....
>>> Yesterday I had occasion to copy a large amount of data from one
>>> machine to another and elected to do it via the network. Both
>>> machines are 'wired', using ethernet going back to the NB604N. Man
>>> it was going slowly so I checked - I was only connected at 100Mbps!
>>
>> That's only a factor of 3 Shaun ... how did you notice ?
>
>LOL, I noticed when the 'copy' window said that there was 1 day and 15 hours
>remaining.

<chortle> yeah ... that would do it.


>> I think that is the one Actrix sent me. Yes I'm new to what passes for
>> broadband in NZ, but it seems plenty fast to me.
>
>It's quite a nice router - other than the speed of the ethernet ports.

Don't think it's going to be a problem for me any time soon ... but good to
know ... just in case.