Will Netgear DG834G with with AOL Broadband?

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006.

  1. I have several spare DG834Gs which did not work reliably enough for my
    needs. Will one of these work with AOL's UK broadband service to which a
    relative of mine is about to subscribe (over my advice)? I recall from
    dialup days that AOL was non-standard with their PPP and I don't know how
    standard is their aDSL PPPoA. Thanks for any advice or experience.

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Anthony R. Gold wrote in
    :
    Well I've seen a DG834G/AOL combined package being sold in PC World:
    presumably the hardware bundled with some sort of AOL subscription. This
    suggests that it will work and is an approved combination.

    I've had AOL working over either a DG834G or a DG834GT (I forget which). All
    I needed to change was the MTU size on the WAN Setup menu: from the default
    value of 1458 to the AOL-specific value of 1400.

    One word of warning: create a separate AOL screen name that's used only for
    the router to log on as, because if the router is logged on as a "real" AOL
    user (eg one whose email you want to read), you can't log on as that same
    user from elsewhere - eg by dial-up when you're out and about.


    As a matter of interest, what were the reliability problems you had with
    your DG834G? I've got a DG834GT and I've installed many G or GT models for
    customers, and I've never experienced problems with any - apart from one
    which had an intermittent hardware fault (exchanged under warranty) which
    caused it to lock solid, requiring it to be powered off for a few minutes
    before it would even display a power light again. But that's one of about 30
    that I've installed.
     
    Martin Underwood, Feb 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Martin, thanks for the advice and your hints on a dedicated router screen
    name and the non-standard MTU setting.
    The modem performs poorly with PPPoE (so not a UK problem).
    The wireless is unreliable in the presence of other strong radio signals
    Non-critical but nevertheless irritating are the many firmware bugs.

    The DG834G has a fantastic specification and if Netgear or someone else
    could build something that fulfilled that spec it would be a world beater.

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Anthony R. Gold

    Conor Guest

    Have you updated the firmware? It's on version 3.xx at the moment and
    in the 2.10.09 firmware update, it improved wireless stability and that
    plus the following update improved ADSL interoperability.
     
    Conor, Feb 2, 2006
    #4
  5. I tried 3.01.25 when it came out last October and found that it blocked
    all incoming connections regardless of rules. I run a number of servers
    and so I require incoming access. I remain at V2.10.22.

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Okay, I'm now booked to install the DG834G tomorrow. I set the MTU to
    1400 and told the subscriber to create a screen name for the router.

    1) What is the form of the DSL router login. If the new dedicated screen
    name is say "router" what would be the complete router login name?

    2) The subscriber received a DSL modem and a CD (I guess he signed up for
    the 2MB Gold tariff). I told him not to install any new software. Am I
    correct that regular XP LAN networking plus the AOL software they
    currently use with their dialup AOL service will be enough without
    anything additional except reconfiguration. The subscriber is nervous
    because the AOL modem came with an injunction not to remove some kind of
    seal which prevents its connection until after the new DSL CD software has
    been installed.

    3) When the router connects and logs in as "router", will the LAN hosts
    then be free to connect and log in to AOL under their own email screen
    names?

    Thanks for any clues and any other advice which might save me wasted tears
    or time tomorrow.

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Anthony R. Gold

    Peter M Guest

    A neighbour had problems when he came back from holiday last summer and
    AOL had (finally) done the regrade to 2000 kbps. His USB modem wouldn't
    connect and we went through several sessions with AOL tech support going
    through de-installing and re-installing the drivers. In the end, to get
    him online, I lent him a router and all was going within minutes, but he
    didn't have a suitable account for multiple users, so we used the router
    to login on plus hispassword and he used the webmail
    interface. I guess that won't be needed in your case but the connection
    will perhaps need to be described as "LAN" (sorry, limited knowledge of
    AOL settings, no wish to use their interface/software hence few answers)

    Peter Morgan.
     
    Peter M, Feb 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Anthony R. Gold

    Conor Guest

    Good. The 3.0x.xx doesn't fix that much TBH. At least you got the
    important ones.
     
    Conor, Feb 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Anthony R. Gold

    Conor Guest

    Yup. You may want to install the AOL Toolbar for IE that has links to
    the common areas of AOL such as Mail etc.

    For IE:

    http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/AOL_Toolbar_for_Internet_Explorer/
    1113505480/1

    For Firefox:

    http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/AOL_Toolbar_for_Firefox/1113505480
    /2
    The seal is to ensure that you install the modem drivers off the CD
    before plugging it in. Nothing more. It's to make it as idiot proof as
    possible.
    Shouldn't need to apart from mail/AIM.
     
    Conor, Feb 2, 2006
    #9
  10. The fact that some accounts are not suitable for multiple users is most
    alarming. Or was the problem just that with the router logged in an
    you found unable to log a second computer in using the
    very same name? That was the issue Martin warned me about and which I
    hope we solved by giving the router its own dedicated non-user screen name
    for logging itself in.

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Anthony R. Gold

    Peter M Guest

    I know as much as you abour AOL account policies/router problems !!
    ie not a lot, and you'll know more than me by the end of the week !!
     
    Peter M, Feb 2, 2006
    #11
  12.  
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Along with my bag of Cat5 jumper leads and microfilters etc. I may need
    also to pack my toothbrush :-(

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #13
  14. Conor wrote in message
    :
    Er, no. The logon name has "@aol.com" on the end - eg

    Coincidentally I had to set one of these up today for a customer - amazing
    how it should happen by chance so soon after answering the question about
    it.

    There was a minor cockup because I'd been led to believe that another
    company had already installed a LAN cable to a remote PC upstairs, and that
    it was as a result of doing this that they realised they didn't have the
    expertise to configure routers etc which is how they passed my details to
    the customer. However this hadn't happened, so I'm going back tomorrow to
    fit a wireless card in that second PC! Just goes to show that even when you
    ask the right question "has X company installed a network cable for you?"
    you don't always get the right answer!
     
    Martin Underwood, Feb 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Thanks again Martin.
    I hope you earn more doing this stuff than I do :)

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 2, 2006
    #15
  16. Anthony R. Gold

    Peter M Guest

    Well spotted Martin. I spoke with my neighbour and we checked his
    router settings (since it had been quite a few months since I was
    over to help him set up the Safecom router he bought, and when I
    did so, I didn't set up to allow me to check it remotely), so
    I could be sure (as I was far from sure about the @aol.com).
     
    Peter M, Feb 2, 2006
    #16
  17. Thanks again for your help - with your hints it was classic plug and play,
    I plugged it in and the house was alight with LAN and wireless connections
    all without touching a thing. I hope your install went as smoothly.

    Tony
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Feb 3, 2006
    #17
  18. Anthony R. Gold

    Conor Guest

    Ah the joys of a decent quality router...
     
    Conor, Feb 3, 2006
    #18
  19. Anthony R. Gold wrote in
    :
    I hope you enabled WEP or WPA encryption on the router. I'm amazed a the
    number of networks I've encountered (either customers' or their neigbours'
    networks) which have been left at the default SSID and are totally
    unencrypted - and probably unintentionally rather than as a service to the
    neighbourhood!


    Yes my installation went smoothly. The only temporary problem was that the
    customer had created a special screen name for the router to log on as, but
    she'd defined it as Young Teen in the parental controls section. This
    allowed the router to log on, get a public IP address and for DNS resolve
    domain name to IP, but failed to ping external addresses from the LAN.
    Changing the screen name to Full Control (or whatever the term is) soon
    sorted that out.

    The wireless card in the second PC worked perfectly well. I didn't make the
    mistake this time of installing the updated drivers off the web; instead I
    used the older software on the CD. I found by bitter experience on a
    previous occasion that the WG311 (PCI card) fails to be recognised by plug
    and play if you use the updated software: it is just identified as "Ethernet
    Controller" rather than "Netgear WG311".

    As so often, what takes the time on this sort of job is all the ancillary
    things like making sure that the PC has the latest Windows and anti-virus
    updates, which the customers usually agree is a good thing for me to do
    while I'm there. And I came across a funny with McAfee firewall while
    setting up a shared printer: there is a rule which says "trust all computers
    on the LAN" but even with this rule enabled, other PCs couldn't ping the PC
    that I was trying to connect to as a print server. I had to create an
    explicit rule on that PC stating the range of permissible IP addresses in
    the subnet. Odd.
     
    Martin Underwood, Feb 3, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.