sglaser2
join:2003-09-02
Acton, MA
|  FVS318 can't talk to *.*.*.255 on WAN
It appears the the FVS318 is blocking access through NAT to any WAN address that ends in 255. I'm assuming it thinks (incorrectly) that these are broadcast addresses and access should blocked. One example address that it can't get to is f4.grp.yahoofs.com aka 66.218.66.255.
Any ideas? Workarounds?
I've seen the problem in version 1.2, 1.4 and 2.1 firmware.
I've reported the problem to Netgear support at least twice with no response.
C:\>ping f4.grp.yahoofs.com
Pinging attach8.grp.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.255] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 66.218.66.255:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\>ping f5.grp.yahoofs.com
Pinging attach9.grp.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.162] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.218.66.162: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=46
Reply from 66.218.66.162: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=46
Reply from 66.218.66.162: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=46
Reply from 66.218.66.162: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=46
Ping statistics for 66.218.66.162:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 82ms, Maximum = 83ms, Average = 82ms
C:\>
|
|
SYNACK
Just Firewall It
Premium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
Host:
Networking
Virtual Private Ne..
Netgear
ZyXEL
| Looks like a real bug. The FVS318 should not make assumptions about the netmask of remote hosts.
I don't see a workaround, except e.g. using an external proxy for these sites.
Keep bugging netgear, this needs to get fixed. 
(I suspect it's due to some extremely poorly implemented smurf block.) |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| reply to sglaser2
Yes, I can replicate the problem in all of the 3 FVS318 that we own. My RO318 and RT311 all work fine.
This is getting ridiculous and I'm starting to loose my patience. I'm still waiting for an answer that I submitted almost two months ago. My mails never get answered.
According to tech-support India the firmware/software is being developed in China.
I wish we could file a class action suit against netgear. Fix the problems or refund us the money.
What a bunch of losers. |
|
PFG
@128.242.x.x
| reply to sglaser2
You should contact the following 3 people with your concerns about this buggy product:
Raymond Lee [ray.lee@netgear.com] Dir of customer service
Vincent Thai [vincent.thai@netgear.com] Tech support manager
Chuck Olson [chuck.olson@netgear.com] VP of eng |
|
StormUP
join:2003-01-08
Gresham, OR | While you're at it request they move tech support and development back to the US! |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| reply to PFG
said by PFG:
Raymond Lee [ray.lee@netgear.com] Dir of customer service
Vincent Thai [vincent.thai@netgear.com] Tech support manager
Chuck Olson [chuck.olson@netgear.com] VP of eng
Sent emails to all three people in reply... so far... silence. |
|
sglaser2
join:2003-09-02
Acton, MA
| I also sent mail on the 18 Dec 2003 to 2 of the names (previous posting in a different thread didn't mention Chuck Olson so I didn't have his name):
Raymond Lee [ray.lee@netgear.com] Dir of customer service
Vincent Thai [vincent.thai@netgear.com] Tech support manager
No response yet. |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| reply to StormUP
said by StormUP  :
While you're at it request they move tech support and development back to the US!
Our salaries are too high... we actually know what we're doing. Netgear's pitiful tech-support and quality is living proof of my claim.
I just saw on CNN's Lou Dobbs tonight in the "Exporting America" segment that Indian engineers are paid 15000~20000 US dollars.
On CNET I saw that AOL is secretly moving engineering ops to India.
»news.com.com/2100-1017_3-5130309···nefd_pop
What is going on? |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| reply to sglaser2
said by sglaser2 :
No response yet.
Probably they don't have a clue of what the problem is. I know they don't have a clue of what ARP is, or where to find the RFCs to implement it.
Like I said before... bunch of losers. |
|
IMKOUL
join:2003-10-03
Bainbridge Island, WA | reply to sglaser2
NETGEAR is aware of this and they are working on it. |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| said by IMKOUL :
NETGEAR is aware of this and they are working on it.
Good!
Is this an official response? |
|
StormUP
join:2003-01-08
Gresham, OR
| reply to starstuff
said by starstuff :
said by StormUP :
While you're at it request they move tech support and development back to the US!
Our salaries are too high... we actually know what we're doing. Netgear's pitiful tech-support and quality is living proof of my claim.
I just saw on CNN's Lou Dobbs tonight in the "Exporting America" segment that Indian engineers are paid 15000~20000 US dollars.
On CNET I saw that AOL is secretly moving engineering ops to India.
»news.com.com/2100-1017_3-5130309···nefd_pop
What is going on?
The idea here is if we complain enough and indicate we will switch brands due to the inferiority of overseas tech support/development that they will move it back. Dell just moved some (not nearly enough) operations back to the US due to customer complaints.
--
www.northwestcomputerservices.com - Northwest Computer Services »storm.northwestcomputerservices.com |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| said by StormUP :
The idea here is if we complain enough and indicate we will switch brands due to the inferiority of overseas tech support/development that they will move it back. Dell just moved some (not nearly enough) operations back to the US due to customer complaints.
This subject tortures me and I think a lot about it.
Which brand are you going to buy? even expensive Cisco make their products in Mexico. There is no "American" option anymore.
It's too late in the game and we... Americans are NOT united. Some of us will say that is good for consumers, others will disagree and at the end nothing will change. If netgear looses one or two customers it won't matter they will make it up elsewhere.
The ONLY solution I see is to completely shut-down spending, that will raise a red flag somewhere? If you don't have the money to buy something, then don't buy it and don't use credit!
See:
»news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5133261···nefd_top
I think this forum is inappropriate for this discussion and to avoid censorship/moderation we should stick to the forum rules and not post unrelated stuff. You sound like an intelligent person and I would gladly discuss this issues with you in other forums. |
|
sglaser2
join:2003-09-02
Acton, MA
| reply to starstuff
Re: FVS318 can't talk to *.*.*.255 on WAN
Level 3 phone support claims that "The problem has been reported many times. We have no idea when it will be addressed (nor will we indicate how long we have known about our broken product). In any case, the IP protocols prohibit using addresses ending in 255 and 0 so we don't really think this is a problem. Everybody else is wrong for using these addresses (but he wouldn't say where in the specs this prohibition is written). He also couldn't explain why some of their products worked properly here -- if something is prohibitied and you decided to block it, presumedly you should be consistent about doing so." |
|
SYNACK
Just Firewall It
Premium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
Host:
Networking
Virtual Private Ne..
Netgear
ZyXEL
| said by sglaser2 :
Level 3 phone support claims ... the IP protocols prohibit using addresses ending in 255 and 0 so we don't really think this is a problem.
As we all know, they are seriously wrong here. Nothing prohibits using IP addresses ending in 0 or 255. Only for the special case of subnets smaller than class C (/24 and higher) these always fall on subnet and broadcast addresses and are thus invalid. For all bigger subnets (/23 and lower), the vast majority of IP addresses ending in 0 or 255 are perfectly valid for hosts and have no special meaning.
As has come up many times in the past here and elsewhere, there are sites that have such IP addresses. Even ISPs assign them to subscribers. (e.g. my comcast subnet is 255.255.252.0, giving a few legal IPs ending in o or 255). |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| reply to sglaser2
said by sglaser2 :
Everybody else is wrong for using these addresses (but he wouldn't say where in the specs this prohibition is written). He also couldn't explain why some of their products worked properly here -- if something is prohibitied and you decided to block it, presumedly you should be consistent about doing so."
"The internet according to netgear" a new RFC? I wish I could put netgear in the »www.rfc-ignorant.org/
I have a netgear rt311 and a ro318 that can ping attach8.grp.vip.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.255]... I will have to call netgear tech-support for an RMA (sarcasm) |
|
EGeezer
Summertime -
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to starstuff
said by starstuff :
said by PFG:
Raymond Lee [ray.lee@netgear.com] Dir of customer service
Vincent Thai [vincent.thai@netgear.com] Tech support manager
Chuck Olson [chuck.olson@netgear.com] VP of eng
I also sent them e-mails on an unrelated problem with multiple FVS318s around 4 DEC 2003. No response from these folks as of 26 DEC 2003. I am not counting on them to resolve my problems with their products.
--
"Well," Brahma said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is no wiser, but an intelligent man requires only two thousand five hundred." -- The Mahabharata. |
|
crabjoe0
join:2003-12-07
Parkville, MD
| I can't believe this! I just picked up the FVM318 and it has the same problem! Thanks folks for letting me know about this. Since they are currently requesting info on any bugs with their beta firmware for the FVM318, I sent them a email to betabugs@netgear.com |
|
CheckItOut
@edotso.com
| reply to sglaser2
Go look at »www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc919.html
then go down to #7 and read it... .255 is the broadcast standard and YAHOO should not be using that IP for a web server. This is something that anyone setting up a web server should know.
This was set in October of 1984... |
|
