Unstable connection using a Linksys BEFW11S4 and Netopia 2241N

I know that this gets bandied about like a panacea (you're a Mac guy, it's like "did you repair your permissions?" which is touted as the solution to everything in the Mac world) a lot, but it sounds like telephone interference. 2.4 gig phones in the building?

Yes sir, as a matter of fact we have 3 of them in the house not to mention 2 cell phones which I am unsure of.... Is there a settting on the BEFW11S4 that I can change that frequency, or some other solution to this problem without getting another router? I completely over-looked this as being a possible problem even though it is in huge letters on the front of the router. I really appreciate your input for my stupidity. What are my options?

Thanks!

You can try changing the channels on your router (most default to channel 6 -- try channel 1 or 11), but the _real_ solution is to move back to 900 mHz phones, or buy 5.8 gig phones, although I'm told that those may soon cause trouble.

Try playing with a cordless phone -- see if you can kill your wireless internet connection by making a phone call. Phones may not be the problem, but they could be.

On 12 Nov 2006 16:31:37 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in :

Likely issue.

Not an issue.

No.

Only 802.11a (A, not G) would help. Otherwise replace the phones.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:08:23 -0500, Warren Oates wrote in :

No, but some 5.8 GHz phones also use 2.4 MHz, so won't help.

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I will try out the suggestions. Do the phones have to be in use before they cause a conflict, because we haven't used the phones all afternoon?

On 12 Nov 2006 17:36:58 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in :

Some (not all) phones cause interference when the base station checks.

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com hath wroth:

In my limited experience and having used a BEFW11S4 v4 at home for about a year, I would say it's junk. I've been told that some of the non-v4 versions are tolerable, but I have no experience.

Yep. That's about it. Mine would hang erratically when doing nothing. It would always hang about 10 minutes after playing streaming media (video or audio). It would also hang when I tested stability with a variety of router exploits. When it didn't hang and appeared to work, one or two wireless clients would magically get disconnected, could not reconnect, and were locked out until I power cycled the BEFW11S4 v4. At one point, I was running and AC lamp timer to cycle the power twice a day to keep it up. I eventually replaced it with a WRT54G v1.1 running DD-WRT firmware and lived happily ever after.

I enabled NAT on the router and disabled NAT on the modem. The connection has not failed on the wireless side for almost 12 hours now.

While the cordless phones may be an issue, they have not caused any problems with my past setup. I felt pretty certain that it had to be some part of the setup that I had configured incorrectly.

As you have stated Jeff, in the past I can recall the router hanging shortly after streaming audio/video. The problem I was having was happening close to every hour no matter what.

Also, the WRT54GS w/speed booster is about the same price as the WRT54G. If I do replace my router, is it worth getting the one with speed booster?

Thanks again to everyone who has replied.

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com hath wroth:

There's nothing wrong with double NAT. I have systems with that arrangement in order to isolate the LAN from the WLAN. It's only detriment is that some applications have problems going backwards through both firewalls and require port forwarding on both routers. Double NAT should not cause hangs and oddities unless you happen to have both DHCP servers enabled. That will cause problems.

Since you already have a router in the Netopia 2241N, |

's apparently no need for another one in the BEFW11S4. I suggest you use the BEFW11s4 as an access point, not a router. Basically, disable the DHCP server, ignore the WAN port, and connect with a LAN to LAN cable to the Netopia. See the FAQ at: |

I've seen that on my BEFW11S4 v4 when being attacked or heavily port scanned from the internet. Could I trouble you to look in the serial number tag of your BEFW11s4 and kindly disclose the hardware version number? The V4 is apparently quite different from the others.

Not for the speed boost. However, some of the GS models have more RAM than the non-GS models. See: |

'm not sure this is a good idea for your derrangement. You already have a conglomerated DSL modem and router combination in the Netopia. The major benifit of the WRT54G is the availability of alternative firmware such as DD-WRT and OpenWRT. Most of the router features in the WRT54G will be useless as there's no way to bypass the router section of the Netopia. If you really want to use the WRT54G, you'll need to replace the Netopia with a common DSL modem. Incidentally, complications like this are why I like seperate boxes for the modem, router, and wireless access point.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:00:16 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

Double NAT can cause problems with: * VPN * SSL * Applications that break NAT rules

Port forwarding can help overcome NAT problems, but isn't a panacea, since forwarding a given port can only be done to a single host.

I speak from experience, having had to get rid of double NAT to resolve problems.

I do not see a hardware version number indicated. Is it tied within the serial number, if so I'll post that instead.

I have to agree, the root of my problem lies in the FREE modem that was sent by the ISP. I had service with them several years back when they sent just a plain DSL modem. Now they try to include everything in one box, which was an obstacle at first. I still have my old DSL modem, but unfortunately I lost the power adapter that goes with it. It was an Alcatel model 3EC18804BCAC05.

The connection has been stable since my last post. I would say it is going on 24 hours now without loosing the wireless clients. I only have NAT enabled on the linksys router. DHCP is disabled on both devices because I prefer to use manual IPs since the network is rather small.

It looks like the linksys router might stick around for a while afterall. Again, I really appreciate all the information that each of you have provided.

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com hath wroth:

It probably is tied in with the serial number, but I don't know how to decode it. However, there's a better way. I'm looking at the bottom of my BEFW11S4 v4 router. There are TWO serial number tags. One is Black and silver and says "Model No BEFW11S4 ver. 5". The other is an all black tag with the "IC ID: 3839A-W11S4V4" and the "FCC ID: PKW-BEFW11S4V4". If these don't look familiar, please post the FCC ID number and I'll excavate the hardware version number out of the FCC ID web pile. However, since you say there's no such number, my guess(tm) is that you have a V1.0 hardware version, which had no version suffix. Also possible are v2.0, v3.0, v3.2, and v4.0. However, these should have suffixes on the label. I've had no experience with the v1.0 model, but the 2.0 and 3.0 appear to be stable. I guess(tm) it's on the v4 model that's a problem.

I've heard that there's no free lunch or modem. Somebody paid for it.

That's an Alcatel Speed Touch Home.

have a few of those in the office. Except for a security problem with the "Expert" mode, and a command line configuration mess with the "Golden" mode, the later models are tolerable DSL modems. I'll check the voltage and current on the power adapter when I get to the office tomorrow.

Well, you're probably ok if it holds together. However, I suggest you reconsider the double NAT. It sorta works, but you don't need it and can do as well using the BEFW11S4 as an access point instead of a wireless router.

This brings up an interesting possibility for a spare BEFW11S4 V4 that is currently collecting dust on a shelf because of streaming problems. I replaced it with a WRT54G V4 that sits in one end of my house and does a decent job providing wireless access for most of the house except the farthest corner from the router. Moving the WRT54G to the center of the house is not a feasible option. Has anyone taken a problematic BEFW11S4 and used it as an access point with good results? Are the problems with the BEFW11S4 only in the router functionality?

Proposal:

1. Ethernet cable between WRT54G and BEFW11S4 (located on opposite ends of the house)
2. No DHCP or routing in BEFW11S4, use it as a wireless access point only.
3. Set both devices to the same channel? Or one to channel 1 and one to channel 6 or some similar spread?

Plan9 hath wroth:

Groan. I never figured out if it was the router section that was hanging, or the wireless section. I guess you get to find out.

Have you tried a reflector?

The site is still down.

Well, I can try it easily enough here. However, I'm lazy. Give me about a week.

We are about to find out. One test is worth considerable guesswork.

1 and 2 are fine. The question of using the same channel and same SSID always comes up. I covered this before, but can't find my rant on the subject.

If the two radios are totally isolated from each other, you can use the same channel because they won't interfere. The problem with using the same channel will ocurr roughly half way between the two radios, where your laptop is talking to one radio, but hearing interference from the other. Chances are high that there will be interference at midpoint even if the routers can't be heard at the endpoints. That being said, it will probably NOT be a problem if you are the only user. The only interference generated by an idle access point are the

10 times per second beacons (which I usually slow down to 1 per second). In other words, you have to have traffic to create interference. If you have a non-overlapping channel available (that isn't being used by the neighbors) I would put each radio on different channels (1, 6, and 11).

The SSID issue is dependent on whether you must have seamless roaming. Both the same SSID if you want to roam. Different SSID's if you want to choose which access point to connect.

Most commodity wireless access points do a miserable job of roaming. You start with a laptop connected to AP1 and start walking toward AP2. The signal will get worse, the connection speed slows down, the errors increase, but the stupid client radio will not give up trying to stay connected to AP1. You could be sitting in front of AP2, but if you sitll have a signal from AP1, it will stay connected. It really depends on the client adapter and driver. Intel Proset 10.x does a nice job of roaming and will grab the strongest signal if possible. Others are not so nice about roaming. The only way to tell is to try it.

Model No. BEFW11S4 ver. 4 S/N: C2760CB13623 E1 FCC ID: PKW-BEFW11S4V4 IC ID: 3839A-W11S4V4

Yea, it would be nice if they would just stick with the simple DSL modems instead of trying to make a one-stop solution. I suppose for the majority of their customers it probably is more convenient.

That'd be great if you could get me the stats on the power supply for the Alcatel modem. I would probably just use it if I am able to find one for a reasonable price.

The connection stability is still going strong by the way. No glitches yet.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Version 4. (See v4 at the end of each line). That's what I have.

Output is 9VDC 1000ma, center pin positive. The connector is 5.0mm od and 2.1mm center pin. The specific model number is: Ault Inc. P48091000A040G Ebay shows one hit at:

there are others all over the internet.

Y'er lucky. Mine would go fine for several days, then hang several times the next day. It was really erratic. I'd be interested if yours continues to work well.