Netgear R7000 Nighthawk AC1900 Router Review and Comments Thread - Page 13 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
First ... 11  12  13 14  15  ... Last
Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming > Netgear R7000 Nighthawk AC1900 Router Review and Comments Thread
RogerSC's Avatar RogerSC 11:09 PM 02-12-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almighty2 View Post

@RogerSC, wow, that was fast. I still haven't had a chance to install it yet since I''m still trying to test ipv6rd in dd-wrt using the CLI once I figure out the correct parameters to put in... Maybe that bug of yours still hasn't been reported to Netgear. there is still 16 days remaining in February for the official non-beta firmware to come out. As the new beta still has telnet disabled, I'm not in a big hurry to test it since I need the CLI to do the ipv6 config that is not available in the web interface.
[/URL]

I was joking about switching back to dd-wrt so quickly...but the bug I was talking about has been reported by me, and at least one other person from the Netgear forum. And Searay was going on there about how he has been trying to get them to fix it for some time, as well. I suspect that they have more reports than that, but I don't have any access to their bug report database, so I don't know that for sure. It is particular to Comcast, though, and I don't think that they have Comcast in Elbonia, or where ever they do the Netgear firmware work *smile*. At least, that's the only way I can explain how such an annoying and blatant bug can go unfixed for 5 months (as of the end of Feb.). I just gave Netgear a piece of my mind about this one again, although I can hardly spare another piece of my mind these days *smile*.

Almighty2's Avatar Almighty2 01:27 AM 02-13-2014
@RogerSC,

I know you wouldn't switch back that fast unless there were major problems so atleast I know you'll be running it for a few days atleast. Maybe Bob can see if he can get any info from them about it. We don't even know if the software is done in-house or outsourced for that matter. Are you sure it's just Comcast and not some bug related to their ipv6 implementation?
erwinquek's Avatar erwinquek 01:58 AM 02-13-2014
Can IPv6 on R7000 support /128 prefix on the Wan interface?

My ISP issues /128 addresses via DHCP but r7000 shows a /64 address.
RogerSC's Avatar RogerSC 02:02 AM 02-13-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almighty2 View Post

@RogerSC,

I know you wouldn't switch back that fast unless there were major problems so atleast I know you'll be running it for a few days atleast. Maybe Bob can see if he can get any info from them about it. We don't even know if the software is done in-house or outsourced for that matter. Are you sure it's just Comcast and not some bug related to their ipv6 implementation?

Yes, that's a more complete of putting it. Netgear's IPv6 implementation doesn't play with the way that Comcast's IPv6 works. Haven't had this problem before, my Asus RT-N66U (and RT-N56U also) worked great with Comcast IPv6 for over a year. No problems power-cycling or rebooting with IPv6 enabled and in use, never lost my internet connection as a result of doing either of those. The way that Searay put it, and I agree with this, the Netgear router firmware apparently doesn't do the right things to get a new public (WAN) IPv4 or IPv6 IP address lease from Comcast, after a power-cycle or reboot, so it loses its internet connection. I can ping the router from my laptop, but there is no WAN address beyond that.

When this happens, and you look at the "Advanced Status", the WAN IP address in the "Internet Port" status block is all 0's, so a new WAN address lease is not being acquired. It's that simple, and that's what I've told Netgear, along with delivering all the debug data that they've asked for.

I should check what Comcast would charge me for a single static WAN IP, since if I went that way it would probably work fine. Darn it, I just looked and I see that you can only get a static IP at the business service level...too expensive just for that, it would be cheaper to get a different router.
toomanytvstosee's Avatar toomanytvstosee 07:44 AM 02-13-2014
Thank you Bob we very much appreciate it
42LBX's Avatar 42LBX 07:59 AM 02-13-2014
I have said this in the NETGEAR forum ...

Well, I am a fan of 1.0.3.24_1.1.20.

My throughput speeds are back up; actually, about 5% higher than my fastest on 1.0.2.194. 5% may be within a degree of error, but still ... it is nice to see my speeds up. 1.0.3.24 is a keeper for me at least smile.gif

The other betas I have tried have not even been close. From a throughput perspective, the betas have actually been really close to what I have gotten with DD-WRT (Kong). I could never get the throughput out of DD-WRT than I do with NETGEAR's firmwares; other than of course NETGEAR's drops in connections.

I also find my link speeds to stay much higher ... prior ... I would fluctuate from 550 Mbps to 866 Mbps ... now whenever I look I am getting 750 ish to 866 Mbps with more times than not always seeing 866.

I would not consider myself a power user.

All I really do is:

1. Reserve my IP addresses for all my devices.
2. Have a USB 2 stick in the USB 2 port to throw some AVI and MP4 movies via DLNA to watch on my DISH Hopper.
3. Use Dynamic DNS to view my home security cameras on my cellular devices. I am not rich enough to pay for my ISP to give me a static IP wink.gif


Anyway ... 1.0.3.24 ... is a keeper!


Well ... until the next one gets posted wink.gif
lilstone87's Avatar lilstone87 11:02 AM 02-13-2014

I hate to be the one to complain about this newer beta, but I notice using my android phone using the 2.4ghz band. Speed's have went from around 10mbps down in a area of the house, to now 3-5mbps. I have tried changing channel's and etc. But I always reset before, and after upgrading firmwares. I looked threw everything, and all the same options are enabled. So I am guessing some wireless changes have been made between this latest beta post by Bob, and the beta build before this that Bob posted.

 

I will probably flash the older beta back on the router sometime today, and see if the result's change back to where they were for me. Because as of right now, if i can double my wireless speed on the 2.4Ghz on my android phone using the older build, it's worth it to me.

 

Edit: Well I think I might of figured out the speed difference i was seeing between the two firmwares on the 2.4GHz band using my android phone. On the older beta build, I was using channel 1, and it was defaulting to channel 3 as the main channel. On the latest beta build selecting channel 1, it would stay on channel 1. So I tried using channel 3, and speed's seem about the same. Oddly though using channel 3, i am overlapping channel 5 which is the edge channel a neighboring router is using.


AntonH's Avatar AntonH 11:19 AM 02-13-2014

Hi,

Same here. After flashing I thought router went dead.

Seems bit faster than previous beta f/w, 1.0.3.18.

Miss telnet for sure.


RogerSC's Avatar RogerSC 01:52 PM 02-13-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilstone87 View Post

I hate to be the one to complain about this newer beta, but I notice using my android phone using the 2.4ghz band. Speed's have went from around 10mbps down in a area of the house, to now 3-5mbps. I have tried changing channel's and etc. But I always reset before, and after upgrading firmwares. I looked threw everything, and all the same options are enabled. So I am guessing some wireless changes have been made between this latest beta post by Bob, and the beta build before this that Bob posted.

I will probably flash the older beta back on the router sometime today, and see if the result's change back to where they were for me. Because as of right now, if i can double my wireless speed on the 2.4Ghz on my android phone using the older build, it's worth it to me.

Edit: Well I think I might of figured out the speed difference i was seeing between the two firmwares on the 2.4GHz band using my android phone. On the older beta build, I was using channel 1, and it was defaulting to channel 3 as the main channel. On the latest beta build selecting channel 1, it would stay on channel 1. So I tried using channel 3, and speed's seem about the same. Oddly though using channel 3, i am overlapping channel 5 which is the edge channel a neighboring router is using.

You know, the only 3 clear, non-overlapping channels on 2.4GHz. are 1, 6, and 11. If you pick another channel you're overlapping one of these. It's pretty easy to find an image on the internet of how the wireless channels overlap using google, and it is interesting to see.
lilstone87's Avatar lilstone87 02:12 PM 02-13-2014

Yes I know this, but like I said oddly for me my phone at least is getting better speeds using channel 3 as main channel. I was using channel 11 before this router, but one wifi card on one of the laptops will not connect and run when using channel 11. Which I think is because when selecting channel 11, router is using up to channel 13, and the wifi card will not connect to 2.4GHz channel's over 11.


42LBX's Avatar 42LBX 02:40 PM 02-13-2014
inSSIDer is your friend in trying to find lower used channels.

To get a real picture though you should use inSSIDer in all areas of your home. For example, on one side of my home channel 1 is almost free and clear. However, I get terrible throughput on that channel. When I move to the center of my home, where my router is, everyone and his dog to the back of me is on channel 1; probably explaining my poor throughput on that channel.
Almighty2's Avatar Almighty2 03:26 PM 02-13-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerSC View Post

Yes, that's a more complete of putting it. Netgear's IPv6 implementation doesn't play with the way that Comcast's IPv6 works. Haven't had this problem before, my Asus RT-N66U (and RT-N56U also) worked great with Comcast IPv6 for over a year. No problems power-cycling or rebooting with IPv6 enabled and in use, never lost my internet connection as a result of doing either of those. The way that Searay put it, and I agree with this, the Netgear router firmware apparently doesn't do the right things to get a new public (WAN) IPv4 or IPv6 IP address lease from Comcast, after a power-cycle or reboot, so it loses its internet connection. I can ping the router from my laptop, but there is no WAN address beyond that.

When this happens, and you look at the "Advanced Status", the WAN IP address in the "Internet Port" status block is all 0's, so a new WAN address lease is not being acquired. It's that simple, and that's what I've told Netgear, along with delivering all the debug data that they've asked for.

I should check what Comcast would charge me for a single static WAN IP, since if I went that way it would probably work fine. Darn it, I just looked and I see that you can only get a static IP at the business service level...too expensive just for that, it would be cheaper to get a different router.

They charge that much for IP's because they are inefficiently allocating the space as the 1 static IP option at $15 is really 4 IP's as the other 3 are used, one for the network address, one for the router gateway and another for broadcast leaving you with only 1 usable. Just like the 5 static IP's is $20 when in reality, it's 8 static IP's if they kept it as a CIDR/24 which would mean it actually had 8 useable instead of only 5. Cable Companies and telephone companies can't run a good quality ISP as that is not their specialty except for Sprint and MCI and WorldCom as those are known as the big 3 tier 1 internet backbone providers. AT&T, the original one didn't get into the Internet business until 1994 and it was BBNPlanet (later known as GTE Internetworking and now Genuity), one of the original innovators of the internet since the 1960's who provided transit for AT&T Worldnet known as att.net on the bbnplanet.com backbone for most the connectivity, anywhere that bbnplanet cannot reach, it used InternetMCI. Seems like back then, every cable company provided internet service through @Home while TIme Warner had their Roadrunner Internet service. Seems no one with Roadrunner is having issues with the R7000. Atleast not before the Time Warner Cable acquisition by Comcast news yesterday.
AntonH's Avatar AntonH 03:31 PM 02-13-2014

Hi,

On theory, using ch. 1, 6, 11 is preferred but in real world theory does not win always.

Real world rule, use whatever channel works best for you. In my case it is ch. 9.

I encountered many things in antenna(RX and TX),  theory could not explain. Like wise

best speaker on theory does not always sound good in real life.; another example.


Bob Stalder's Avatar Bob Stalder 06:32 PM 02-13-2014
So glad I found this thread... I was having issues with my R7000 and just installed the latest beta posted and wow did it make a major difference

Thanks to all and especially Bob with Netgear
anky's Avatar anky 06:22 AM 02-14-2014

@Almighty2 Here are my ping results with the latest beta firmware posted by Bob,

 

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600]
(c) 2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users>ping 10.0.0.1 -t

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 6, Received = 6, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 2ms, Average = 1ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users>ping 10.0.0.1 -t

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 2ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users>ping 10.0.0.1 -t

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 7, Received = 7, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 2ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users>ping 10.0.0.1 -t

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 6, Received = 6, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 2ms, Average = 1ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users>ping 10.0.0.1 -t

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 6, Received = 6, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 2ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users>

 

With these results it looks like the v1.0.3.14.... was better than this one as I had mostly 1s or >1s in the ping times.


toomanytvstosee's Avatar toomanytvstosee 06:47 AM 02-14-2014
so far this latest beta is a winner for me. No 5.0ghz disconnects and my throughput is back up again.
Almighty2's Avatar Almighty2 01:32 PM 02-14-2014
@anky,

Hopefully it stays that way.... In any case, you should try what I wrote in post #359 since it would help to know if there is actually high traffic activity or not when it happens.
Squuiid's Avatar Squuiid 02:04 PM 02-14-2014
Airplay and iTunes sharing on a bridge are STILL broken in 1.0.3.24_1.1.20.
C'mon Netgear!
anky's Avatar anky 12:46 AM 02-15-2014
Well with the latest beta firmware, when I moved away from the router, on my galaxy note 1 at about 30 feet from the router, it disconnected with my note informing authentication error. Never had this problem earlier.

After one and a half day of testing the latest beta I am back on to V1.0.3.12_1.1.18. The latest beta caused frequent disconnections for me at 30+ feet from the router. Also the ping times were slightly higher. So I dunno where Netgear is heading to?

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
AntonH's Avatar AntonH 09:47 AM 02-15-2014

Hi,

On 2.4GHz  or 5GHz?  In my case I haven't seen drop outs on 5 GHz with  real time media streaming.

Speed improved at least 10% on speed test with known server.  I always flash-factory reset- reconfigure.


anky's Avatar anky 09:53 AM 02-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonH View Post
 

Hi,

On 2.4GHz  or 5GHz?  In my case I haven't seen drop outs on 5 GHz with  real time media streaming.

Speed improved at least 10% on speed test with known server.  I always flash-factory reset- reconfigure.

Same procedure here as well. Disconnects on both 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz.


Lend27's Avatar Lend27 10:40 AM 02-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Stalder View Post

So glad I found this thread... I was having issues with my R7000 and just installed the latest beta posted and wow did it make a major difference

Thanks to all and especially Bob with Netgear


I'm expecting my R7000 to be delivered today. Where is the beta download link?

Thanks!
Len
RogerSC's Avatar RogerSC 10:46 AM 02-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lend27 View Post

I'm expecting my R7000 to be delivered today. Where is the beta download link?

Thanks!
Len

This post has the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493322/netgear-r7000-nighthawk-ac1900-router-review-and-comments-thread/330#post_24348126
AntonH's Avatar AntonH 10:47 AM 02-15-2014

Hi,

Where I am I use ch. 9 on 2.4GHz, 149/153 on GHz which gives best signal level and

least interference according to inSSIDer.


anky's Avatar anky 11:18 AM 02-15-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonH View Post
 

Hi,

Where I am I use ch. 9 on 2.4GHz, 149/153 on GHz which gives best signal level and

least interference according to inSSIDer.

 

I use channel 6 on 2.4Ghz and 149 on 5Ghz for best signal. It starts disconnecting at 30+ feet with 2-3 solid concrete walls.


AntonH's Avatar AntonH 11:43 AM 02-15-2014

Hi,

How high is your router from the floor?  Mine is way up at least 2/3 way up towards the ceiling on the loft

in 2 story house. it covers devices in basement to the top floor. Played with settings for beam forming?

Using something like inSSIDer?


Almighty2's Avatar Almighty2 07:51 PM 02-15-2014
@RogerSC, after reading the Netgear forums, now I know what you and searay are talking about when it comes to the ipv6 problem. searay never mentioned he was using comcast though. The thing is I will never see the problems 99% of the people out there buying routers will see because most people either get their internet connectivity using DHCP or PPPoE which basically sends the IP address and such from the ISP's server. I have 8 static IP addresses so I actually assign the addresses on the device itself with the R7000 taking the last of my 8 static IP addresses as I have both forward and reverse DNS configured that way so in other words, the R7000 or any other router for that matter does not require getting the IP from the other side so I will never see that problem. The only time the router actually DHCP's a address is when I do a factory default reset either when the router is new or after a software update but from what I remembered, it worked correctly with ipv6 as it will always randomly pull one of the available static IP's in the 8 permanent static IP's I have assigned that is not used by any other computer by the ISP's Redback Subscriber Management System.
dave1977nj's Avatar dave1977nj 11:59 PM 02-15-2014
Thank you Bob, without your help and support Netgear would fail. smile.gif
RogerSC's Avatar RogerSC 12:27 AM 02-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almighty2 View Post

@RogerSC, after reading the Netgear forums, now I know what you and searay are talking about when it comes to the ipv6 problem. searay never mentioned he was using comcast though. The thing is I will never see the problems 99% of the people out there buying routers will see because most people either get their internet connectivity using DHCP or PPPoE which basically sends the IP address and such from the ISP's server. I have 8 static IP addresses so I actually assign the addresses on the device itself with the R7000 taking the last of my 8 static IP addresses as I have both forward and reverse DNS configured that way so in other words, the R7000 or any other router for that matter does not require getting the IP from the other side so I will never see that problem..

Yes, I'm pretty sure that if I had a static IP that I wouldn't be seeing this problem, also. But Comcast only offers static IP's for business customers, so no chance of that.
anky's Avatar anky 05:33 AM 02-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonH View Post
 

Hi,

How high is your router from the floor?  Mine is way up at least 2/3 way up towards the ceiling on the loft

in 2 story house. it covers devices in basement to the top floor. Played with settings for beam forming?

Using something like inSSIDer?

My router is about 4-5 feets from the ground sitting on the top of my PC cabinet. Its on the ground floor and I want coverage on my 1st and 2nd floor my walls are 6" concrete walls and my floors are 10" concrete floors. Yeh played with beam forming and InSSIDer and inSSIDer reports about -81+ dbm of signals on about 30+ feet from the router with about 6"+6"+6"+ staircase + 10" concrete walls. Thats the best I can get from R7000 and with my old Linksys wifi G router matching it almost with same signal in that area.


Tags: Netgear R7000 100pas Ac1900 Gig Router
First ... 11  12  13 14  15  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop