Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Workarounds for Vista's Networking Problems?

Cliff posted more than 7 years ago | from the you-might-not-wanna-upgrade-just-yet dept.

Bug 153

tridium asks: "I recently moved into a new place where the landlord left a Linksys WRT54G v2 router for us to use. The three laptops in the house running XP connected to it fine, but my desktop, running Vista RC1 build 5600, had to be hardwired. The Internet worked fine for a bit, but I noticed some websites weren't loading up (Google, Gmail, and several others), and IM clients weren't working. Vista's self-diagnosis said it couldn't communicate with the DNS server, so I researched and it seems the new TCP stack in Vista is wreaking havoc with my router. I upgraded the firmware from Linksys, tried manually setting IP settings, modified the registry to disable TCP window stacking, but nothing helped. Linksys support was also useless in fixing the problem. I'm at a loss and any help, short of downgrading to XP, would be greatly appreciated." Other people have experienced problems getting Vista to work with off-the-shelf routers. A thread from September identifies the new window scaling feature as a potential culprit, while another article says that Vista and SPI-enabled routers don't play well together. Whether the problem is related is unknown, but another thread offers some troubleshooting tips for anyone else who may be experiencing this problem. Has anyone figured out how to disable (or at least work around) some of the more troubling aspects of Vista's new TCP 'features'?

cancel ×

153 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Use teh Linux next time! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17481660)

pwnd!

Install the latest service packs. (1, Funny)

jafo (11982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481670)

Have you tried installing the Debian or Fedora Service Packs?

Sean

Re:Install the latest service packs. (3, Funny)

mac1235 (962716) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481768)

I play games you insensitive clod!

Re:Install the latest service packs. (1)

The Real Toad King (981874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482510)

Yet your username is mac1235. If you care that much about games, why do you run on a Mac?

Yes, I'm assuming that you run a Mac. What is your name supposed to mean?

Re:Install the latest service packs. (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482992)


He runs a Maq, you run a Toad?

Re:Install the latest service packs. (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483658)

...and grub is bi-systemal?

Re:Install the latest service packs. (4, Funny)

toadlife (301863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483716)

He runs a Maq, you run a Toad?
Hey now! I resemble that remark!

Re:Install the latest service packs. (1)

after fallout (732762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484996)

Where is the mod points... that was funny

Playing games again. (1)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484172)

I play games you insensitive clod!

That's what play station is for, silly. You expect something with a top selling title called "Office" to help you play? A fool and his money ...

Re:Playing games again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484220)

willy, are you still at work?

Re:Install the latest service packs. (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482132)

Jebus you moderators are humourless fools.

Re:Install the latest service packs. (4, Interesting)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482426)

For me it stopped being funny after the 10,000th time. Imagine if every linux question were guaranteed to include multiple "Install the latest patch from Redmond" variants. Sure, it is funny once (especially the redmond one I just made up) but give it a rest once in a while. I'm extra unsympathetic to downmods since this used to be a guaranteed +5, Insightful. Stupid karma whores.

Anyway, even the most rabid linux fan has to admit that there are people who, for various reasons, use windows. Let them ask questions and get answers without snarky unhelpful "advice" from time to time ok?

Re:Install the latest service packs. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482680)

no

Re:Install the latest service packs. (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483992)

The whole thing is getting very annoying, I admit. also stupid is when people mention it as SERIOUS ADVICE to someone reading slashdot. Oh well, next time Duke Nukem Forever is mentioned, I have a way to freshen that joke...

Re:Install the latest service packs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484774)

Ok, thats look at this is your "rational" way...

Windows Vista has a broken network (hey, if its the only OS thats having trouble, its most likely broken.... pluss MS's lovely attention to following specs would help reenforce this assupmtion in a biased way).

*Nix are not broken. Windows XP, not broken (but probably broken into... sorry, couldent resist), OSX not broke (but you will be after you by it... sorry again).

Windows Vista system requirements... let me put it this way: i could run multiple *nix OS's on the same desktop computer that would only be 'OK' for Vista. Windows XP, dosent require such expensive (or non-existent) hardware. *nix based OS's are all good to go, exept OSX, it requires special hardware from Apple.

Basic logic, Vista is broke, or at least unfunctional. Anyother desktop OS (yes, even other Windows's) dont have this problem, and are much faster on current hardware (as in: will work on current hardware). Thus, any switch to anyother desktop OS (Windows * (exept Vista), *BSD, *"GNU"/Linux, and the surrounding other "OS"'s that for some reason seem all support Mozilla.... Yes, all these OS's can be considered a upgrade to Windows Vista, or if your a number nut and keep thinking "if Vista is the newest, then it must be the upgrade, as upgrades are new!", well, then all those OS's where evolutionary steps forward from where Vista is.

Re:Install the latest service packs. (1)

scoot80 (1017822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485206)

how about you log in and repost.. Mr Anonymous Coward

Re:Install the latest service packs. (1)

Nanpa (971527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485612)

Yes, but no one EVER has a problem with linux, everything works perfectly off the bat, like music codecs and wireless network cards. I mean, you here all these rumours of Linux Support Groups, and help forums, and wikis and whatnot, but that's just an optical illusion formed by Microsoft as part of an elaborate and grandiose scheme to make people think that linux has problems of its own!

But it *IS* a good answer to his problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485782)

The reality is that Windows does indeed have those problems.
Not just the relese candidates - but Windows in general.

Microsoft releases a new version, and compatability with much of your old infrastructure -- be it VB6, SMB, Javascript, Microsoft-Java, Office file formats, or pretty much any other technology they sell.

The right answer for people with these concerns really *is* to switch to software that uses standard protocols, and tries to stick with the standard and compatability across releases. Those are the vendors who aren't trying to inject deliberate incompatabilities just to justify expensive upgrades.

Hmmmm tough question here on slash (-1, Troll)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481696)

Link to ubuntu [ubuntu.com] or gentoo [gentoo.org] or something.

Decisions decisions

Vista RC1 build 5600 (5, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481698)

Vista RC1 build 5600?

For starters, try, oh, I dunno, a newer RC, if you were part of the test, or...wait for it...the release version?

This sort of story makes me a bit ill. I know this is Slashdot and all, but can we please have SOME sort of filter for "my lonely pre-release copy of Vista dosen't work on my home network" stories?

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (1)

steak (145650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481778)

Vista RC1 build 5600?

For starters, try, oh, I dunno, a newer RC, if you were part of the test, or...wait for it...the release version?

This sort of story makes me a bit ill. I know this is Slashdot and all, but can we please have SOME sort of filter for "my lonely pre-release copy of Vista dosen't work on my home network" stories?

QFT

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (3, Funny)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482902)

WTFDQFTSF?

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (1)

billdar (595311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483104)

I need to adjust my tinfoil hat, you read my mind exactly...

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (2, Funny)

Tragek (772040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484254)

Quoted for truth, or Quit Fucking Trolling. Interestingly, both definitions are possibly applicable here.

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (3, Informative)

blincoln (592401) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481798)

For starters, try, oh, I dunno, a newer RC, if you were part of the test, or...wait for it...the release version?

Seriously. I'm running the release with a WRT54G and it works fine. The only networking complaint I have is that there isn't a hack yet to disable the asinine TCP connection limit like there was for XP.

Using a third-party TCP/IP protocol with Windows? (3, Interesting)

LoadWB (592248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482606)

This relates to a question I posed on Amiga.org:

Amiga.org - Forum
http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?t opic_id=35273&forum=22#forumpost417060 [amiga.org]

"Is pluggable TCP/IP stacks feasible in mainstream operating systems?

On Amiga we have been graced with AmiTCP, Termite TCP, Miami, Genesis, and probably other TCP/IP stacks about which I do not know. IIRC, these mutated from an original stack produced by Commodore (AS225?) and all offer some compatibility to what appears to be ubiquitous among Amiga, the bsdsocket.library.

So I read about how Gibson Research decried the raw socket access introduced by the new Windows XP TCP/IP implentation (which has not caused the end of the world, best as I can tell,) and Windows Vista introduces another TCP/IP stack. All of these harken back to winsock.dll and winsock2.dll.

Then there's the TCP/IP stack within the Linux kernel, and found in most Unix implementations such as Solaris (/dev/tcp, /dev/udp, etc.)

We run into so many issues with vendors' TCP/IP stacks (like Windows XP SP2's half-open connection limitation,) why do third party vendors not create third-party TCP/IP stacks? Or do they?

Regardless of the thought process behind the curiosity, could we speculate on the viability? Would it be a potential segregation of the mainstream OS world, or could one vendor's better implementation take over?

I see potential for the server market where many system builders, administrators, and maintainers would like to tweak system performance and security as much as possible. Would TCP/IP outside of the operating system allow for such an approach? And would it be too much of a potential black-eye for OS vendors to ever allow?"

Re:Using a third-party TCP/IP protocol with Window (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485658)

No.

Re:Using a third-party TCP/IP protocol with Window (2)

LoadWB (592248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485666)

Well, that certainly curbed my curiosity and answers all of the World's problems. Thanks for your amazing insight.

Now piss off.

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (3, Insightful)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485344)

I have had no problems with RC2. Now I admit that I could not get GAIM to work, but this is unrelated to networking - its not that GAIM will not connect, its that it won't even freakin start. Seems to be an application error. AIM Triton, Windows Live Messanger, and Yahoo all work fine.

In fact, in my experience with Vista on two different computers on two different routers (one a Airlink, one a Linksys), I have actually experienced improved network performance over XP and, wait for it, even over Linux and OSX.

I will admit that there was a heck of a problem with RC1 and networking, I had all sorts of issues.

Yes, there was issues with RC1, that is why an RC2 was released. And there was a non-public beta or two released between RC2 and the final release candidate, and Microsoft is planing on having more patches when the final release gets released to the public on January 30th.

My advice, upgrade to RC2 or wait for the freakin release, and then see if you have issues. Don't post questions to Slashdot about issues that have already been patched.

Release Candidates should work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482678)

Release Candidates are put out when a piece of software reaches a point where it satisfies its major use cases. For a network stack, this means such basic functionality as correctly interacting with routers, hubs, and other networking devices.

We shouldn't expect a Release Candidate to work perfectly in every single case. But for basic operation, it should be more than sufficient. Again, for a TCP/IP network stack, one should be able to expect that DNS queries for major sites like Google and GMail will resolve correctly. Likewise, one should be able to expect the stack to comply with well-known, well-understood, and well-published standards.

This isn't a case of an internal tester at Microsoft noticing a very basic flaw with their product. By the point this Release Candidate was put out, the TCP/IP stack should have been in working order. The worst it may have had is some performance issues under heavy load, but in terms of standard operating conditions, it should have worked just fine.

What this tells me is that network stack of Vista will likely be unsuitable for production work, even after the final release is out. It is a core component that should have been working very well by the time that Release Candidate was made available, even if this Release Candidate is quite old by now. The fact that it is having so many serious problems with such basic functionality in such a commonly-used situation tells me that it likely isn't a good product.

Re:Release Candidates should work. (1, Troll)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483148)

What it should tell you is that dumb routers that don't correctly support TCP/IP aren't good products.

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483064)

Yeah, remember "release candidate" is just a fancy word for open beta so far as Microsoft is concerned. But then, so is any version of windows prior to its first service pack.

As for the filtering, next time drink from the hose [slashdot.org] !

Ha ha, the usual M$ Solution. (1, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484364)

For starters, try, oh, I dunno, a newer RC, if you were part of the test, or...wait for it...the release version?

Just give Bill Gates $150 and it will work, yeah right. According to the fine summary, this problem was not resolved as of September (link has Windows Vista build 5728), do you think it's fixed now? Will spending your money magically make it work?

This sort of story makes me a bit ill.

Me too, but for entirely different reasons. I think I'm going to stop reading now - I already know that I'm never going to use XP or Vista. The problems M$ creates for their own users with their little anti-competitive tricks are not fun for long. Let me translate a part of the second article for you:

The culprit is the built-in firewall software on the DI-724U router, which features Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI). This is not the only router in the SOHO market that features SPI - Netgears WGR614 and Linksys WRT54GS are among dozens of products that offer similar capabilities. Trouble is, the new and improved TCP/IP stack in Windows Vista falls apart when it encounters an SPI-enabled router. One workaround is to disable SPI on the router. That significantly weakens a key layer of network security, but it allows Internet traffic to get through. Unfortunately, the D-Link DI-724U, like several other products in the same family, doesnt allow SPI to be disabled.

Because Windoze is too weak to hook up to a real network, we have a spiffy protection scheme. It's so spiffy, that it screws up Windoze spyware and that makes Bill angry, so your life will be hard. The solution is to turn off the extra security, but that's un-possible.

Then we get clowns like you ... "just buy teh boxed version, retard!" Stupid, upon broken because of previous stupid in an endless loop.

Re:Ha ha, the usual M$ Solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484460)

twitter [slashdot.org] , please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

  • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
  • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
  • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
  • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
  • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
  • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
  • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
  • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
  • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
  • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy [ibiblio.org]

Re:Vista RC1 build 5600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484882)

You might want to know who the internet "tough guy" insulting you [slashdot.org] is: http://www.hillnotes.net/ [hillnotes.net] .

"Erris" is a sockpuppet account. He's better known as twitter [slashdot.org] .

Here's a thought... (3, Informative)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481708)

Wait a month and buy the real version of Vista instead of using an old, unfinished release candidate.

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Interesting)

dan828 (753380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481824)

Or sign up for Technet plus and get it now. @ $350/year it's a better deal than buying Vista retail.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482276)

Unless I am reading the Technet site wrong, the subscription gives you access to the latest software for evaluation purposes. It's not like the MSDN subscription where you get to have a production install.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482832)

access to the latest software for evaluation purposes

Perhaps the grandparent is suggesting a long-term evaluation...

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Insightful)

Aadain2001 (684036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481928)

And in the mean time he should do what... not have internet access? I'm in a comparable situation where I plan on buying Vista when it hits the shelves for my new computer (I know, I know, I just lost my True Geek credit because I'm not going with a Linux only setup), but what do I run on it until then? I can easily run Linux, but I would like to play some games on my kick ass new video card. I could pirate XP, which may or may not work. Or I could break down and buy XP now and either buy Vista or the upgrade in a few weeks. Basically, it's a shitty time to need a new Windows based OS because Vista is only weeks away. You can't really justify spending the money on XP if you plan on using Vista, but you can't use Vista unless you use a release canadate, which brings us back to this guy's problem. Should he simply turn his computer off for a few weeks to wait for the full Vista (which may still have the issue) or try to find a fix right now?

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482394)

If you need advice about upgrade paths for a Microsoft product, you should search for an answer in the Microsoft Knowledge Base, not on Slashdot.

Re:Here's a thought... (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482420)

And in the mean time he should do what... not have internet access?
He has other computers; he should use one of them. Or reinstall Windows XP. That's what you do when an upgrade doesn't work out: you un-do it. Especially with pre-release software (which only an idiot installs on his only usable machine). If A doesn't work, use B which does.

OK, if your only computer is a hot new piece of hardware that you bought/built with no operating system in anticipation of getting Windows Vista, and you have no way of accessing the internet until you can get a working installation of Vista on it, you have my sympathy... for your remarkably poor planning.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

Aadain2001 (684036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482980)

Hey, sometimes you have to buy the parts when the money is there. Wait much longer and it gets spent on other items (dinners out, games, girlfriend, etc). I'm sure I'm not the only one caught in this situation.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

antonyb (913324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483536)

Wait much longer and it gets spent on other items ...girlfriend... I'm sure I'm not the only one caught in this situation.

Err... You're probably in a pretty small minority. How much does one of those cost these days?

ant.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484282)

Again: remarkably poor planning (not to mention financial discipline).

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484404)

Do you have as much difficulty controling your bladder as your urge to get your new Windows Vista system on the internet? I want it now I want it now I want it now doesn't get you a whole lot of sympathy.

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485940)

That's what financial planning and responsibility is for.

To be serious for a moment, if you really do have that much trouble taming your income (and I used to be that way), look into adopting a $0-based budget. Every penny of your income is accounted for. Then the kicker: don't spend what you don't have or aren't supposed to.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

BillyBlaze (746775) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482868)

For $110 you can get an OEM version of XP Media Center Edition with free upgrade to Vista Home Premium. (at least you could a few weeks ago, not sure when the deadlines are).

How crippled will Vista Home Premium be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17483204)

Windows XP Home was rather crippled. It had numerous artificial limitations that just weren't present with Windows XP Professional. Worse yet, many of these limitations were a hinderance even for home users.

Take the rather low limit of 25 simultaneous network connections. That may seem like a lot, until you try something as benign as hosting an IRC server for your friends with more than 25 users. Of course, if you use your machine for email or web browsing, you practically can't have more than 20 users accessing your IRC server simultaneously. What makes it worse is that the hardware itself could handle far more than 25 users. The limitation is artificial, in order to get you to pay more for Professional.

I don't know how the naming scheme with Vista works. What makes Vista Home Premium different than what I assume would be called Vista Home Regular or just Vista Home? Does it have the same stupid artificial limitations of Windows XP Home?

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483156)

1. he's going to have to buy an OS eventually, so buy a copy of XP with a 'free upgrade to Vista' voucher.

2. Keep running with it connected via a cable. He says it mostly works when 'hardwired', I assume he meant cabled and although he's having DNS issues, he says it works some of the times.

3. Run the webbrowsing via a VM image - VMware is free, and there are plenty of 'browser appliances' you can use that will use their own (linux) stacks bridged to the adapter.

4. Run it through one of the other computers Internet connection - so he proxies through a XP install. This may work, but ICA is easy to set up so it won't be too much of a hardship for a couple of weeks.

5. Try Vista RC2 or a later build of RC1? Wasn't 5600 the last one they released?

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485402)

Wait a second, I think I missed something:

2. Keep running with it connected via a cable. He says it mostly works when 'hardwired', I assume he meant cabled and although he's having DNS issues, he says it works some of the times.
So he is having problems with wireless? And he is blaiming the Operating System? Wireless has always been an issue, and I have never found this problem to be with an OS, but rather crappy drivers. Did he even attempt to download the drivers for his wireless card?

5. Try Vista RC2 or a later build of RC1? Wasn't 5600 the last one they released?
No, build 5744, otherwise known as RC2, was the last one released

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Insightful)

blincoln (592401) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483170)

And in the mean time he should do what... not have internet access?

How about not running a beta OS on your primary machine unless you're willing to accept the potential consequences?

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

Ernesto Alvarez (750678) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482750)

Or even better: wait a year and buy it when all the serious bugs are fixed.
Never buy a .0 version of anything, especially microsoft software.

build 5600? pfft... (1)

steak (145650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481730)

vista rc1.5 build 5612.5.6.10

Why not dd-wrt on the router? (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481752)

I don't know for sure, but if I remember correctly dd-wrt [dd-wrt.com] works well on your router. Maybe if nothing else works reflash your router with dd-wrt?

Re:Why not dd-wrt on the router? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484504)

Why would ANYONE tinker with their Router firmware, when this is explicitly a Windows Vista Issue?

You've never worked in Tech Support, have you?

have you tried.... (3, Funny)

frakir (760204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481758)

Microsoft technical support?

workaround (2, Interesting)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481764)

I can't help with changes in Vista itself, but if nothing works, think about running an old pc as dns server which in turn forwards requests to the dns servers of your provider.
You may even want it to run a proxy like Squid, that way Squid is requesting dns and not your own pc.

Re:workaround (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483212)

think about running an old pc as dns server which in turn forwards requests to the dns servers of your provider
I run dnsmasq [thekelleys.org.uk] on my router... no old pc needed.

(Then again, all my computers run some form of *nix so I don't have the problem. Just mentioning that you don't need a separate pc for dns.)

Re:workaround (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485172)

DNSmasq is actually pretty broken when it comes to providing DHCP services for certain (mainly embedded type) clients - Google for problems associated with the XBox, network printers, etc, etc.

(Client sends a request, DHCP server responds with an offer, client hangs. It's tied up with exactly how the offer packet should be structured, and where in it the offered IP goes.)

As far as I can tell (and, any real DHCP gurus out there, please correct me), it's down to a oversight on the part of the DHCP spec as to exactly where the offered IP should go (header, payload, or both), and overly simplified DHCP clients (who just look at the header, saving the overhead of parsing the whole packet).

The best workaround for Vista Networking (-1, Redundant)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481770)

is to install the latest Ubuntu build.

Re:The best workaround for Vista Networking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17483234)

personally, I don't see why you don't just install the lowest level of network services in Vista.

I hope I can help (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17481816)

This patch should fix your problems: http://www.kernel.org/ [kernel.org]

Beta Tester (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17481820)

Such is the life of a beta tester...

Oh, wait, you mean you were trying to use release canidate software it in a production environment (even if it is a home PC)? You found things didn't work correctly. Well, I'm sure you submitted your results through the appropriate channels at Microsoft, right?

Read the fine print next time; it's for testers and developers, not for getting a free OS for a year that works correctly in a production environment.

Re:Beta Tester (-1, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482162)

Read the fine print next time; it's for testers and developers, not for getting a free OS for a year that works correctly in a production environment.

I hate to say this but with Vista you probably won't be getting a paid for OS in a year that works correctly in a production environment...

Misleading article (5, Informative)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481838)

The article describes two separate issues: TCP window scaling, and SPI (Stateful Packet Inspection). These have very little to do with each other, excepting the fact that they're both networking features in Windows Vista.

From what I gather from a quick Google, the problem with TCP window scaling is actually one with crap routers that don't support the feature and misbehave upon encountering it. Furthermore, TCP window scaling is not new to Windows Vista. It was merely disabled by default in previous versions of Windows. The fix is extremely simple, see this article [tech-recipes.com] for information.

The second issue, with SPI, seems to indeed be a Vista bug, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that it exists in Vista RTM, or even RC1/RC2. It's seriously not "stuff that matters" anymore. Prerelease versions always have bugs! If you don't like it, wait for the RTM (or as is usually the case with Microsoft, the first service pack)!

I supect crap routers both times. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484344)

Stateful Packet Inspection isn't a vista feature. It's something that's on the router. It's just another firewall... and I think it could easily be drain bamaged firewall not handling window scaling. Or it could easily consider packets with these 'unknown' TCP options set to be suspect and drop them.

It's rather plausable that a firewall in the router sees the scaling options and the packet and goes "eek! hack attempt!" even though it's well within the standards. Note that he gives a list of UDP and ICMP things that do work correctly.

So, no, frankly with that ZDnet drone, unless he can proove it's a Vista bug and not a Dubmass Cheap Router Firewall Bug, I don't think this is a bug either. Not enough detail for me to believe him, yet there's enough mistakes in his post to not give him the benefit of the doubt:

"But trying to open a web site in a browser results in a 404 message" Umm, if you get a 404 that means you have sucessfully connected to the website and got a file-not-found. There is no chance whatsoever that a 404 can be the result of faulty TCP/IP implementation.

Easy (0)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481948)

Simple: Don't install Vista. If you must use Windows , install XP. If you have the choice and can, buy a Mac. If you like computers, give Linux a try.

Re:Easy (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482640)

The poster is posting on slashdot. He/she knows about linux. Probably XP and mac too.

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482722)

I noticed something (me and my roommate just got new macs in the last 2 weeks). We had a linksys, and now an actiontec modem/router/firewall/dhcp/hub box... linux and osx experienced a similar issue, dns timeouts resulting in slow loading and sometimes like one instance of linux not loading any sites in firefox, but console network stuff being fine.

these dhcp routers set the box ip address as the primary dns server when it hands out dns info. in linux i manually edited the /etc/resolv.conf to remove that line and it fixed it, same in osx except i did it through the networking pane. the win xp boxes on the local network never experienced this problem.

i know that fix is working, and i haven't looked any closer as to why this is a problem. but I thought I'd mention it in light of reading the original problem, and your solution. i can say vista is one of the reasons i decided to get a mac (besides it can dual boot win/linux, or run it via parallels, it's based on bsd, has all the fun slick stuff on the desktop, and dvd playback etc without any tweaking, stylish package etc). and i really don't trust vista drm, final word isn't in on it, but the rumors i've heard are pretty ominous. i regret waiting so long to take the plunge and try out an apple. right decision for me, ymmv...

Window Scaling (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481992)

None of the links explain what the problem is with Window Scaling. Presumably Microsoft are doing something non-standard as Linux also sets Window Scaling for TCP, and we have not seen reports of this causing problems

"new window scaling"? (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482108)

W...T...F...?

If this place were even approximately "News for Nerds", Our Illustrious Editor would have realized that calling TCP Window Scaling "new" rises to the same level as referring to the recently-inaugurated Clinton administration. Literally: RFC 1323 [ietf.org] dates to 1992.

I love the scare quotes around "features" at the end of the summary to. God forfend that that evil Micro$oft CORRECTLY implement a TCP standard.

Sigh. Look folks. In this case, MS isn't at fault. It's craptacular consumer-grade network gear which cuts corners on standards compliance. I acknowlege freely that MS is an evil monopolistic corporation bent on world domination, but in this case that's beside the point.

Re:"new window scaling"? (1)

Geekboy(Wizard) (87906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482836)

you fail to keep in mind that MS did some wierd and wacky stuff with window scaling. violating RFCs in a wierd and wacky way even.

thats not to say this is the cause of the breakage. its likely due to the fact the guy writing is is a thief.

Re:"new window scaling"? (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483732)

God forfend...
What are you, some kind of a Shakespeare fan?

Re:"new window scaling"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484840)

Oh, I beg to differ. 2 points, please pay attention. Linux is used as the base operating system on those routers. Linux supports window scaling of TCP packets. Those routers support window scaling of TCP packets. I'm running a Linux system right now through one of those routers, and it works PERFECTLY. Mind you, Linux follows very closely the POSIX standard as well as strict TCP/IP compliance, and also, possibly more telling, Vista is at this time BETA, and the version being tried is not a release version, and perhaps even more telling, this system is being built by Microsoft, and they might not ship a working version (there might be a big service pack 6 months after the official release). Blaming it on the router was a quick try at a guess to the problem, but evidence refutes your guess. (Linksys ships to MacOSX users as well, and the Mac also supports windows scaling, Linksys would have heard about it a long time ago if things were borked).

Re:"new window scaling"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485632)

"Mind you, Linux follows very closely the POSIX standard as well as strict TCP/IP compliance"

And this has been independently verified by what testing organization?

This is not entirely Microsoft's fault (5, Informative)

quazee (816569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482118)

The problem is that most consumer-level hardware is only tested with the most common TCP settings, so, changing the TCP receive window (RWIN) or maximum transfer unit (MTU) often reveals hidden bugs in their TCP/IP implementations.
Even the subtle changes in timing of the packets may trigger previously undiscovered bugs.

In my case, the web interface of the Acorp LAN420 ADSL router was 'freezing' 75% of the times when accessed from Vista(RTM). Upgrading to the latest firmware solved this problem.

If everything else fails, you can try disabling RWIN scaling by running this as administator:
netsh interface tcp set global rss=disabled
netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled

(to see the list of available options, just run 'netsh interface tcp set global')

Re:This is not entirely Microsoft's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482230)

Wow, even vista is getting infected with almost random command lines and paramaters. How do you get to the form where you change that without having to hack it?

Nice headline...here are some more (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482202)

Ask Slashdot: How do I prevent 2007 Ford cars from blowing up?
Ask Slashdot: What can we, as a community, do to stop Jeb Bush from killing kittens?
Ask Slashdot: If I think that my iPod is causing my fingers to turn black and drop off, should I report it?

RC1 and WRT54G routers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482364)

Both Vista RC1 and RC2 both had problems nwith the WRT54G series routers if you had your IPv6 stack enabled. These problems are resolved in the release version.

Obligatory... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482446)

I'm at a loss and any help, short of downgrading to XP, would be greatly appreciated.

Upgrade to Linux.

Glad to be of assistance!

Sad, just sad (2, Insightful)

zcubed (916242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482580)

The editors must sit around and watch a retarded monkey for guidance as to which submissions are accepted or rejected. If the monkey picks his ass the submission is accepted and if he picks his nose it is rejected. Go ahead mod me down, this article is a joke. I had to look at my calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st.

Re:Sad, just sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482916)

what about when the monkey scratches his balls?

Let me get this straight... (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482660)

There are four computers in your home. Three are running Windows XP, one is running Windows Vista. The computers running WinXP are fine, but your computer running WinVista is having problems, and you conclude that your router is broken and pester Linksys with your operating system issues?

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482862)

As others have noted, OS and hardware specific features (that nonetheless are following the specs) can get cheap consumer routers to behave strangely. DLink DI-624+ routers (at least those sold in some regions) couldn't handle multiple Centrinos with adaptive power management, for example. A temporary instruction to disable the setting was released (hurting battery life), finally followed by a firmware update. Maybe the Intel implementation is really in error, but if so, D-link never bothered to make that accusation.

I just set up a friend's house with a WRT54G v6 (1)

h2_plus_O (976551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482740)

I was able to use my laptop last week, running Vista (RTM), just fine via wifi and wired modes on a more recent version of that same wireless router.
You may be able to flash the router with updated bits, and that might help. Also note: my laptop did just fine (i.e., "just worked") via wifi all the way from beta 2, tho I recall having some issues connecting to a WPE2-encrypted station. I don't know if it was a software issue or a user issue, tho.

Out of curiousity, were you able to connect without encryption? If you're using encryption, what kind? What errors are you seeing? Are you getting an IP addy? Those would be useful things to supply when asking for networking help. ...tho really, asking for help on a microsoft beta (about which not a lot is known, except that it comes from MS and they're the devil as far as slashdotters can tell) from a bunch of slashdot-types (who, if they're anything like me, hate not knowing a useful answer) without supplying a lot of background info is an almost-certain recipe for abuse. :-) My advice: try flashing the router with the latest bits, then if that doesn't work, go get a supported OS.

Try custom linux firmware (1)

Tweaker_Phreaker (310297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483124)

Linksys wrt54g's originally used linux based firmwares until cisco bought them and then started selling linux based wrt54gs's at a premium... Well there are a few community made firmwares like DD-WRT (www.dd-wrt.com) and openWRT which offer much more features and will allow you to turn on SPI if it's still a problem.

Re:Try custom linux firmware (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485190)

This is really sickening.

I recently purchased a new Linksys router and I could have sworn it was not as stable as an older one. Now I know why. Cisco really sucks. I guess they can no longer innovate so they have to cripple products in order to sell their higher-end stuff. This is probably a major factor in them acquiring Linksys in the first place.

have you considered flashing the router to linux? (2, Interesting)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483176)

If you would like to keep scalable TCP windows, you might try flashing your Linksys with DD-WRT [dd-wrt.com] or one of the other Linux-based firmwares [linksysinfo.org] . One or more of them is bound to have support for it.

Release Candidate are simply candidates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17483182)

I had this issue at work. Simply put, the networking on RC1 didn't work right; RTM works fine.

OS X? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483742)

My Powerbook -- well, the screen is dead for the moment, but it has been a router killer for some time now. I haven't been able to figure out whether it's OS X, the VPN, the SSH, or what, but everywhere I go with this thing, routers die and have to be reset (pull the plug). Sometimes it doesn't happen for days, sometimes it happens every hour or so, sometimes I open the thing up from sleep, get all connected to the wireless, and watch it kill the router.

I'm hoping that Vista will convince these router manufacturers to get their act together. Even if it is somehow OS X's fault, or my fault, I shouldn't be able to DOS a router that easily.

Re:OS X? (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484208)

Let me guess - you figured out how to set the MTU to 9000.

Re:OS X? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484536)

I'll have to check that, but it's doubtful. This is wireless, so Gigabit just doesn't make sense. I do occasionally use a Gigabit crossover...

But so what? Does this mean we can "ping of death" these crap Linksys boxes? Gives new meaning to "wardriving"...

Re:OS X? (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484718)

The MTU is the number of bytes in an Ethernet frame (not specific to Gigabit) the standard being 1500 bytes before the sender asks the receiver for confirmation. It can be set to as high as 9000 bytes which decreases overhead. If your external ethernet systems will take 9000, transfers run like a rocketship. If they can't take anything higher than 1500, you can create what amounts to a buffer overrun and kill routers and switches. You'd be surprised how much high end equipment can't take jumbo frames.

Open the terminal and enter "ifconfig" to see how things are set. Better yet visit this KB article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 192 [apple.com]

Quick, dirty and ugly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17484160)

You *could* try and get internet connection sharing going on one of the XP machines and try running the Vista machine through that. It might be possible to assign IP alias on the XP machine to some disjoint subnet. Then you might be able to configure internet connection sharing to provide internet from the subnet behind the router to the alias subnet. Then manually configure the Vista machine to be on the alias subnet and to use the XP machine as default route and DNS.

Hahahahaha-bye bye.

RC2 should fix the issue (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484776)

As others have stated - get the newer RC, or wait for the full release.

I have an IBM (pre Lenevo by a few weeeks) G41 laptop and the wireless works perfectly with my WRT54G R3.0.

No Vista (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485164)

Why use a software product that is incompatible with other mainstream hardware and software?

The obvious solution is to dump Vista. Is there any great reason to have it at this point other than you're looking to waste a tremendous amount of time beta-testing compatibility issues for Microsoft without pay?

Install the latest firmware (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485180)

Install the latest firmware. And no, you didn't. And no, this isn't a Vista problem.

The WRT54G [wikipedia.org] is no longer being maintained by Linksys. But fortunately... (and it's amazing nobody on Slashdot knows this... but then again they don't truly seem to know ANYTHING useful, ever) the firmware is based on Lunix. Thus, it's open source... and thus... other people can, and have, modified it. And maintained it!

The WRT54G firmware is still being maintained, but has branched a bit. I personally use HyperWRT+Thibor [thibor.co.uk] . It's closest to the stock firmware, and I don't feel like getting experimental with it. YMMV.

Quite possibly the MTU setting (2, Informative)

dr00g911 (531736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485332)

I've run into this problem with RC1, and occasionally standard XP machines wouldn't connect to Win update.

My solution? Change the MTU on the router to 1492. Problem solved.

--droog
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>