🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <_DTA8.10400$JZ6.218009@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, 
gary@intrepid.com says...
> John,
> I've seen the following problems with the model 5435 SWC7004AWBR unit: (1)
> quality problems (first unit had very weak signal receive/xmit, and would
> hang in both wireless and wired mode) and (2) problems on the wired (copper)
> LAN where it would hang unpredictably, (3) quirky (ie, difficult to
> reproduce) problems with DHCP, and various other aspects of operation, (4)
> lack of (any) decent monitoring and logging functions. As an aside, I
> updated the firmware to the latest version in both cases.
> 
> I may have gotten a handle on the frequent hangs on the wired network:
> problems with 100bT connections, or perhaps a mixed network of 10bT and
> 100bT connections. I've now gone to each of my desktop PC's and dumbed them
> down to "10 base T (full duplex)", instead of  "automatic" (where they sense
> whether the connection is 100Mbs or 10Mbs.)  (thanks to Paul Grohe for
> suggesting this idea). After doing this, based on a sample of 1.5 days of
> operation, it seems that the wired network hangs have gone away. Now it may
> be the case that the NIC's I'm using are too old/cheap to really work well
> in a 100bT setting (everything in my home net was effectively 10bT before
> because of some intervening cheap-o hubs that I was using). I kind of doubt
> that though - becuase of the numerous problems reported by other users of
> the SMC 7004WABR model 5435 gear. Also, most of my PC's at home were
> functioning well in a 100bT switched setting at work before I brought them
> home.
Gary thanks for the tip which I will file away for future use.
These %&#@$ 5435 units have different problems for different folks.
My problems are exclusively on the WAN side and I lose connection with 
the outside world.   I cannot log into the router but yet, the LAN 
still works perfectly.  The problem seems worse when I have an active 
connection on the wireless.   Sometimes, I have to power off to reset 
things.   Go figure that one.
Thanks again,  John