Dear oh dear, Mike-Bracknell!
You seem to be utterly unable to lose face.
You've jumped from:
Quote:
Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of NAT into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them
To a general discourse on dodgy production lines in the Far East!
Just admit that a throw-away remark has been seen to be bollocks, there's a good chap. Take a few days off so we can all forget about it; maybe go fishing - then you can tell us all about the enormous one that got away.
To err is human. Putting your hand up and admitting it is manly. Strenuously denying it just makes you seem like a... politician (and that's most uncomplimentary right now!).
FBW
Fair enough, the initial quote is slightly misleading as it is not the
purposeful inclusion of NAT (or of any of the other code modules into the networking within the router that causes the problems, but rather the fact that they are included modules within the network stack of the device in question, and as such in certain situations (such as the situation I cite with the DGFV338 and early code release), these modules have been seen to interact badly within the router and thus cause symptoms such as:
- The loss of ability to authenticate an 802.11 connection
- The loss of ability to reach anywhere other than the wifi stack on the device in question
- Specific inabilities to reach random network ports and protocols on the LAN when the device is used as a secondary AP
Therefore, the original quote should ideally be:
Also I would recommend NOT re-using another combined router/AP at the other end, as the inclusion of another set of code modules into the equation is liable to cause more headaches than remove them
Does THAT make it a little easier for you to understand now?
I'll make it patently clear for you:
Just because YOU haven't experienced the issue, does NOT mean it doesn't exist
or is it standard form on PPRuNe for people to attack someone purely based on lack of post count and irrespective of message?
Finally - the message to the OP is that spending £50 on a dedicated AP is likely
over the lifetime of the product to cause you less grief (and hence less cash) than re-using any unbranded AP/router combined product that's been stashed away in a cupboard. That's it, pure and simple.