A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 4th 05, 03:21 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Martin Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

I've just noticed something very strange...

My Netgear router reports:

Up Down
Attenuation 30 dB 29 dB
Noise Margin 6 dB 6 dB


Whereas a customer's Dlink router that I'm testing for him before
installation, shows

Attenutation 9 dB 9 dB
Noise Margin 31 dB 31 dB

for the same phone line, plugged into the same wall-socket by the same
cable.


This makes me wonder: has one of the routers got the headings for the two
attributes the wrong way round?


Given that lower attenuation and higher noise margin is better, and that I'm
only about 100 metres from my exchange, I suspect that the Dlink is right
whereas my Netgear is arse-about-face!



  #2  
Old June 4th 05, 05:39 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Sunil Sood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,590
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T


"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
This makes me wonder: has one of the routers got the headings for the two
attributes the wrong way round?


Yes.

Given that lower attenuation and higher noise margin is better, and that
I'm
only about 100 metres from my exchange, I suspect that the Dlink is right
whereas my Netgear is arse-about-face!


What firmware version are you running in the Netgear?

http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/D102700.asp shows that latest 3
firmware versions included a fix which "Corrected the display of Line
Attenuation and Noise Margin listed in Router Statistics."

Regards
Sunil


  #3  
Old June 4th 05, 06:45 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
[-=Dan=-]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

"Sunil Sood" wrote in message
...

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
This makes me wonder: has one of the routers got the headings for the two
attributes the wrong way round?


Yes.

Given that lower attenuation and higher noise margin is better, and that
I'm
only about 100 metres from my exchange, I suspect that the Dlink is right
whereas my Netgear is arse-about-face!


What firmware version are you running in the Netgear?

http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/D102700.asp shows that latest 3
firmware versions included a fix which "Corrected the display of Line
Attenuation and Noise Margin listed in Router Statistics."

Regards
Sunil


Heheh, good find


  #4  
Old June 4th 05, 07:04 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Martin Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

"[-=Dan=-]" wrote in message
...
"Sunil Sood" wrote in message
...

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
This makes me wonder: has one of the routers got the headings for the
two
attributes the wrong way round?


Yes.

Given that lower attenuation and higher noise margin is better, and that
I'm
only about 100 metres from my exchange, I suspect that the Dlink is
right
whereas my Netgear is arse-about-face!


What firmware version are you running in the Netgear?

http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/D102700.asp shows that latest 3
firmware versions included a fix which "Corrected the display of Line
Attenuation and Noise Margin listed in Router Statistics."

Regards
Sunil


Heheh, good find


I did think that a noise margin of 6 dB sounded very poor for a
newly-installed line (within the last five years) that is probably only
100-200 metres long (allowing for the line being routed via roads rather
than as the crow flies. People in various groups said that I was very lucky
to be able to get 2 Mbps with that much noise.

Now I know that Netgear had got their attenuation and noise the wrong way
round! Pillocks!

I'll upgrade the firmware now: I'm on V1.01.00 and I see that the current
Netgear firmware is V1.01.28.


  #5  
Old June 5th 05, 03:24 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Martin²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 848
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

Martin U:
whereas my Netgear is arse-about-face


Not just your Netgear, ANY and ALL Netgear...
Regards,
Martin



  #6  
Old June 5th 05, 10:49 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Martin Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Martin U:
whereas my Netgear is arse-about-face


Not just your Netgear, ANY and ALL Netgear...


Oh, had they made the same mistake in the firmware of all their routers?
What a cockup! At least the firmware upgrade for the DG843GT fixes it for
me, as well as fixing the logging emails which did not have a "Date:" field
in the header (!), and adding additional features such as Atheros Extended
Range on the Wireless page. Shame that Atheros Extended Range doesn't seem
to be documented in the on-screen help, a revised version of the user manual
or the knowledgebase.

Like all firmware upgrades, I was terrified that there'd be a power cut or a
mains glitch while I was uploading the new firmware to the router.


(Talking of cockups, I noticed that the DLink that I was testing had a great
one: on the summary page that shows how long the router has been up, it
always displays some ridiculously large number because it subtracts today's
date/time from the date when the router was booted - and the latter is
always 1 Jan 1970 or 1980 because the router's time of day hasn't yet been
adjusted early in the boot cycle.)


  #7  
Old June 5th 05, 12:26 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Sunil Sood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,590
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T


"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Not just your Netgear, ANY and ALL Netgear...


Oh, had they made the same mistake in the firmware of all their routers?


No - Martin just had a single bad experience with a Netgear modem/router
(can't remember what model but it wasn't the DG series I think) a long time
ago and now everytime a Netgear thread appears he always feels compelled
says how bad every Netgear product is in his view.

What a cockup! At least the firmware upgrade for the DG843GT fixes it for
me, as well as fixing the logging emails which did not have a "Date:"
field in the header (!), and adding additional features such as Atheros
Extended Range on the Wireless page. Shame that Atheros Extended Range
doesn't seem to be documented in the on-screen help, a revised version of
the user manual or the knowledgebase.


If you have any questions http://forum1.netgear.com/support/index.php is
probably the best place to ask.

Regards
Sunil


  #8  
Old June 5th 05, 01:07 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Martin Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:49:43 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

Oh, had they made the same mistake in the firmware of all their routers?
What a cockup! At least the firmware upgrade for the DG843GT fixes it for
me, as well as fixing the logging emails which did not have a "Date:"
field in the header (!),


Actually adding that Date: line was IMO a step backwards. It is not a
required header in emails and is usually (in my experience) added, and
done so correctly, by the MTA. However the line now being added by the
routers is wrong because it gets the daylight savings (summer time) offset
wrong in the time zone. One of the mistakes already reported to Netgear.


Isn't the Date field compulsory? Every email that I've ever received from a
recognised email program such as Outlook, Outlook Express and the various
Unix mail clients such as Elm - they all include it. I'd have thought that
Date, From, Subject and To were essential parts of an email. I've found that
timestamps added by the various mail servers along the way are quite often
wrong by several hours because people don't bother setting the correct
timezone: if you translate all timestamps to GMT, each hop should always
occur *later* than the one before it. At least with the use of Windows XP
and W2K or W2K3 server, most computer clocks should be correctly synced to
Microsoft's master timesource.

I noticed this morning that the new router email reports the sent time as
1000 rather than 0900 because it's got the daylight saving wrong. However I
tend to display the received time in my Outlook Express. It would be so easy
for Netgear to have incorporated the standard rule for the dates when
daylight saving begins and ends - as Microsoft do with Windows.

By the way, does anyone know what the three hex numbers in the subject of a
Netgear router email are? Before the firmware upgrade the subject was
"NETGEAR Security Log [03:04:05]" and now with 1.01.28 "NETGEAR Security Log
[55:F3:B9]". When I first saw one of the emails, I thought for a moment that
it was the time when the email was sent - ie 4 minutes past 3 AM.

One feature that would be useful is if there was a way of making the router
generate a test email on demand to check that the recipient details are
entered correctly. You can set the interval to be every hour, but waiting up
to 1 hour until xx:00 isn't really an option, especially as with the Netgear
the time is taken from a time server so could can't keep faking the time to
xx:59 to trigger another email.



  #9  
Old June 5th 05, 03:35 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Martin Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:07:28 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:49:43 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


Isn't the Date field compulsory?


No. See RFC 2822 which defines how the date syntax MUST be shown, but
only if one is included.

Every email that I've ever received from a
recognised email program such as Outlook, Outlook Express and the various
Unix mail clients such as Elm - they all include it.


The header is permitted and defined where used but it is not required and
adding wrongly is IMO less than beneficial.


So presumably mail clients are clever enough to be able to search the
"Received: from server1 by server2; timestamp" lines looking for the
earliest timestamp to display as the "Sent" date if there isn't an explicit
"Date:" field.

I'd have thought that
Date, From, Subject and To were essential parts of an email.


Then this thread will be an education, and you are welcome :-)


Thanks for the education!

I noticed this morning that the new router email reports the sent time as
1000 rather than 0900 because it's got the daylight saving wrong. However
I
tend to display the received time in my Outlook Express. It would be so
easy
for Netgear to have incorporated the standard rule for the dates when
daylight saving begins and ends - as Microsoft do with Windows.


An automatic setting of the start and end points for daylight savings is
unrelated to the bug in which the router sends the wrong time zone. The
simple *nix time daemon in the router does not have time zones (which are
geographic areas) but just simple off-sets from UTC/GMT so for example the
program is not aware whether +0 means the router is in the UK or in West
Africa which have different time rules.


On closer inspection, it's stranger than that. On the router's "Schedule"
page, you can select the Timezone (their word) which is in Windows form (eg
"(GMT) Greenwich Mean Time: Edinburgh, London") and enable/disable Daylight
Savings. And this does give the correct time from the timeserver - it allows
for the fact that we're on BST at the moment. However the "Date:" field in
the email wrongly says "Date: Sun,5 Jun 2005 09:00:00 -0000" instead of
"Date: Sun,5 Jun 2005 09:00:00 +0100". So they are taking the time from the
time source (which is always in GMT, I believe) and allowing the timezone
and daylight savings shift for determining the router's internal clock but
they are ignoring the daylight savings shift in the email "Date:" field.
Also, for those people who live in places like India with n-and-a-half hour
shift from GMT, the extra half-hour is ignored both for internal time and in
the email. Still not quite there, Netgear :-)

One feature that would be useful is if there was a way of making the
router
generate a test email on demand to check that the recipient details are
entered correctly. You can set the interval to be every hour, but waiting
up
to 1 hour until xx:00 isn't really an option, especially as with the
Netgear
the time is taken from a time server so could can't keep faking the time
to
xx:59 to trigger another email.


Odd, in the DG834G you can. Go to the Log screen and hit the Send Log
button. Is that button not there in the DG834T?


Ah, yes! [blushes] I was looking on the "Email" page. The "Send Log" button
is on the "Logs" page. I'll remember that one for the future - it's
especially useful if it's AOL where customers don't usually use Outlook
Express so there aren't simply settings that you can copy out of the
"Accounts" menu. It's a case of trying to work out what AOL's SMTP server is
(I *think* it's smtp.aol.com, but I could be wrong) and whether it requires
authentication even though you're connected via an AOL line rather than a
"foreign" line.


  #10  
Old June 5th 05, 07:56 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
James
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Noise/attenuation: Netgear DG834T versus DLink DSL-G604T


"Sunil Sood" wrote in message
...

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Not just your Netgear, ANY and ALL Netgear...


Oh, had they made the same mistake in the firmware of all their routers?


No - Martin just had a single bad experience with a Netgear modem/router
(can't remember what model but it wasn't the DG series I think) a long
time ago and now everytime a Netgear thread appears he always feels
compelled says how bad every Netgear product is in his view.

What a cockup! At least the firmware upgrade for the DG843GT fixes it for
me, as well as fixing the logging emails which did not have a "Date:"
field in the header (!), and adding additional features such as Atheros
Extended Range on the Wireless page. Shame that Atheros Extended Range
doesn't seem to be documented in the on-screen help, a revised version of
the user manual or the knowledgebase.


If you have any questions http://forum1.netgear.com/support/index.php is
probably the best place to ask.

Regards
Sunil

Well just to give a positive side to this thread, I've got two Netgear
DG834G units, a MKI and a MKII, one at home and another at the office, both
run 24/7 and are rock solid. I can't fault these units. Excellent bit of
kit. Both running 1.05.00 firmware.

James


 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dlink g604t: lousy performance ? susanbarnesus uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 March 20th 05 02:26 PM
DLink DSL-G604T NAT/ DMZ Weirdness youngerpants uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 January 27th 05 10:11 AM
Netgear WG834G Versus Netgear WGT624 T4_TUT uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 September 12th 04 02:28 PM
DLink DSL-G604T NAT+Static configuration Habu uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 7 August 31st 04 04:57 AM
DLink DSL-G604T Problems silent pro uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 July 5th 04 03:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.