PDA

View Full Version : Horrific setup experience - problem solved



doggieflyer
2008-06-29, 18:59
I've spent 14 hours over the last two days trying to get this system to work. I can't begin to explain the amount of inconsistent behavior I've experienced. I'm going to describe the latest steps I documented over the last hour and really appreciate any constructive advice.

I've just built a new home and wired it with Cat-5 throughout for distributed audio (with Sonos in mind but I went with the cheaper Squeezebox system). I do not have an internet connection at my new home yet. I want to use Ethernet, not wireless, for fastest performance.

I have a D-Link broadband router to which all the cables are wired. I had an Apple Airport Express wireless router but unplugged it because its firewall cannot be disabled. The Squeezebox system gave me many fits without a wireless router so I went and bought a new wireless router and disabled the firewall. I disabled the Windows Vista firewall and installed SqueezeCenter. I enabled all traffic on the D-Link firewall. In summmary, no firewalls.

I purchased one Duet and three additional receivers. Here's my most recent experience attempting to connect one, then the second receiver.

Starting with receiver #1, I was eventually able to get it setup using the controller. It's set up via the 'Ethernet' connection option. My PC running SqueezeCenter can see the receiver. I imported all my music into SqueezeCenter previously.

The controller does only shows these options on the home screen: READ ME, Now Playing, Extras and Settings. My music is nowhere to be found. If I go to SqueezeCenter on my PC, I can select a playlist and choose Play. The music begins to play on my SqueezeBox receiver. Eventually the controller catches up and shows the current song playing. I can use the pause and advance buttons on the controller. But I can't view any songs, artists, playlists etc. on the controller.

Now I move to reciever #2. It too is hard-wired. I have a strong wireless connection on my controller and I'm right in front of the receiver. I choose Settings, Controller Settings, Advanced, Set up Squeezebox". I reset the receiver and get the red flash. Nothing comes up on the controller after minutes. So I unpower the receiver and re-power. It flashes red.

Suddenly the controller displays both of my receiver IDs under "Setup Squeezebox", whereas before the re-power of receiver #2 none displayed. I run back to receiver #1 and it's stopped playing music and the light is blue. The controller still indicates that receiver #1 is playing music. Wrong!

I proceed to set up receiver #2 now that the controller can see it. I select the receiver and it states "Connecting to " my wireless network. This time I'm not given an option to choose Ethernet or wireless. Why not? After a few minutes I get the failure to connect message and the light turns amber. The controller states "Problems Connecting. Couldn't connect your squeezebox to your wireless network. Make sure it is within range of your wireless network (Lost Network)."

My receiver is hard-wired. It's also in strong range of the wireless router. I go to my wireless router, which has a digital display, and can see that receiver #2 is connected to the wireless router and has been assigned an IP address. Uggh!

So I head back to receiver #1 which stopped working. On the controller I go back to the setup Squeezebox menu and pick this controller. This time it doesn't ask me to pick Ethernet/wireless and doesn't search for a network. It instantly jumps to "Choose Music Source". The only choice this time is SqueezeNetwork. My PC music source has disappeared. I check my router and see that this time receiver #1 has connected using wireless, whereas the first time I has the opportunity to choose Ethernet and it had connected via Ethernet. Uggh!

Now I press the home button on the controller. The controller hangs for a minute and then reboots. It then says "Choose player". None are listed. The only option listed is "Set Up Squeezebox". Uggh!

I'm a senior software engineer with networking experience. I've spent 14 hours with this system. I can't imagine the average consumer not returning this product immediately.

Unfortunately I'm too stubborn to give up, so I ask for your help.

#1 Does the fact that I have no Internet connection but do have a working Lan prevent a successful configuration?

#2 Why is the product so stubborn about using wireless when an Ethernet cable is attached? Even the controller wording tells you to get within reach of a wireless network when an ethernet connection attempt fails. Why on some setup attempts do I not get the option to specify an Ethernet connection? Receiver #2 insists on connecting via wireless and fails.

#3 What would cause it to fail to connect via wireless?

#4 Why does receiver #2 refuse to connect to the network? It's on the same physical wired LAN as #1 and the router and the PC.

#5 One the one occasion when I did get receiver #1 working, why does the controller not list any of my music? The music is fully visible within my PC's SqueezeCenter software, and I can initiate playing music on the receiver from my PC. And I can use the controller to pause and advance to the next song. That suggests to me that a firewall is not in the way (plus I disabled all firewalls).

#6 Why does receiver #1 get dropped by the controller and I have to set up the receiver again? 3/4 of the times I've tried it fails, then magically it works.

#7 Why did receiver #1 stop working and become invisible to the controller and to my PC after I unpowered and re-powered receiver #2?

I appreciate any help.

EnochLight
2008-06-29, 19:24
Wow - your experience is definitely not a common one or the entire forum would be lit up with posts similar to yours. I would highly recommend actually *calling* tech support so they can get your sorted. I've got one Duet and two SB Classics and have no trouble at all, though I'm all wireless.

BTW, no Internet connection is needed if you are running SqueezeCenter on an "always on" media server of some sort. Looks like you have that so your issues are very strange indeed. The only trouble is that you won't be able to get firmware updates as they are released (and there has been a few for the Duet/Controller since its release). Internet connection highly recommended for this.

Call: 1 (877) 887-8889 Monday through Friday 9AM to 7PM Pacific.

Good luck and let us know what you find!

doggieflyer
2008-06-29, 19:31
Thanks for the response. I'll definitely give the support team a try on Monday. I persevered on my own since they were unavailable on the weekend.

I also plan to bring the system in on Monday to a friend's place that has a connection to perform the controller upgrade. I've seen a message on the controller that states an upgrade is available that will help with connectivity. I hope that works magic!

EnochLight
2008-06-29, 19:36
Great to hear you've had some luck. I was going to recommend not giving up, as the SqueezeCenter/Duet/Squeezebox product is a superb piece of kit. I've been an owner for a few years now and can't imagine (music) life without it.

I know I've updated my Controller/Duet firmware a coupe of times since its initial release and performance has improved quite dramatically. Good luck!

pfarrell
2008-06-29, 19:54
doggieflyer wrote:
> I'm a senior software engineer with networking experience. I've spent
> 14 hours with this system. I can't imagine the average consumer not
> returning this product immediately.


What's providing DHCP on your network?
Are all the devices, SqueezeCenter PC, Receivers, and Controller getting
proper IP addresses on the same subnet?

I had serious problems when my Wifi WAP was giving out bad subnet
addresses, it worked sometimes, the WiFi connected things could talk to
the greater Internet, but finding the SqueezeCenter was a challenge.

Fixing the WAP made my life great. I literatlly plugged in my (only)
Receiver, it self setup, and life has been perfect since.

In nearly all cases, the horrific experiences reported on the forums
have been network related (some firewall) rather than real hardware.

Pat
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

finnbrodersen
2008-06-29, 22:57
#2 Why is the product so stubborn about using wireless when an Ethernet cable is attached? Even the controller wording tells you to get within reach of a wireless network when an ethernet connection attempt fails. Why on some setup attempts do I not get the option to specify an Ethernet connection? Receiver #2 insists on connecting via wireless and fails.


I agree 100% with this item #2, my Duet Receiver also wanted real bad to connect wireless. It took 2-3 tries to "convert" it to RJ45 wire connection.

amcluesent
2008-06-30, 01:07
>I have a D-Link broadband router to which all the cables are wired...The Squeezebox system gave me many fits without a wireless router so I went and bought a new wireless router<

Have you ensured that only one of the routers is a live DHCP server and that the devices aren't otherwise in conflict with default routes, sub-nets or you've enabled virtual WLANs?

NB The Receiver is fine without a wi-fi AP, they can establish an ad-hoc link (bridged mode) with the controller if necessary.

egd
2008-06-30, 03:22
I've spent 14 hours over the last two days trying to get this system to work. I can't begin to explain the amount of inconsistent behavior I've experienced.What you've described in your post is more or less identical to the behaviour I've been experiencing with my Controller and Receiver, wired and/ or unwired.

I don't have any answers, but I share your frustration - and have shelved the Duet hoping that in around 6 months time the BS will have been sorted. Hell, I still cannot update firmware on the Controller other than by way of an SD card.

James_B
2008-06-30, 03:36
What you've described in your post is more or less identical to the behaviour I've been experiencing with my Controller and Receiver, wired and/ or unwired.

I don't have any answers, but I share your frustration - and have shelved the Duet hoping that in around 6 months time the BS will have been sorted. Hell, I still cannot update firmware on the Controller other than by way of an SD card.

I agree, i did the same thing.. never had anything like the problem with SB3s.

doggieflyer
2008-06-30, 07:27
Thanks for all the responses and ideas. One that a couple of you hit on I will definitely try.

The wired and wireless routers I think both are providing DHCP. I can tell because the IP range on the wired is 192.168.0.x while those connecting to the wireless show 192.168.2.x. I will try to disable DHCP on the wireless and see if that helps.

Several times I did unplug wireless outright so the system would act in bridge mode. I still had lots of connection problems. Hopefully after updating the controller and fixing DHCP I can progress.

On the controller note, I went to my old home this morning and connected my wired and wireless routers to my FIOS connection. After a few failed attempts I was able to get the controller to update and reset. I can see that the upgrade took. I've not gotten any further with the connection problems yet, but anyway...

After the controller updated, when I go to the update option it still says that another update is available. I don't have the wording in front of me but it basically says that I can "upgrade to version ?". Whenever I try, it fails.

It thinks there is a newer software version but it doesn't know what the version is - just displays a ?. Odd...

Phil Leigh
2008-06-30, 08:12
Thanks for all the responses and ideas. One that a couple of you hit on I will definitely try.

The wired and wireless routers I think both are providing DHCP. I can tell because the IP range on the wired is 192.168.0.x while those connecting to the wireless show 192.168.2.x. I will try to disable DHCP on the wireless and see if that helps.

Several times I did unplug wireless outright so the system would act in bridge mode. I still had lots of connection problems. Hopefully after updating the controller and fixing DHCP I can progress.

On the controller note, I went to my old home this morning and connected my wired and wireless routers to my FIOS connection. After a few failed attempts I was able to get the controller to update and reset. I can see that the upgrade took. I've not gotten any further with the connection problems yet, but anyway...

After the controller updated, when I go to the update option it still says that another update is available. I don't have the wording in front of me but it basically says that I can "upgrade to version ?". Whenever I try, it fails.

It thinks there is a newer software version but it doesn't know what the version is - just displays a ?. Odd...


oh - I think you only want one device handing out DHCP on your network...and you want everything on the same subnet (well at least you need to guarantee that your SC server, router and duet are all on the same subnet)

ftlight
2008-06-30, 08:23
Phil Leigh wrote:

> oh - I think you only want one device handing out DHCP on your
> network...and you want everything on the same subnet (well at least you
> need to guarantee that your SC server, router and duet are all on the
> same subnet)

Other than that it's the default setting on most network devices, is
there any good reason to use DHCP for static network devices whose IP
address should never change?

--
Bill Burns
Long Island NY USA
http://ftldesign.com

Phil Leigh
2008-06-30, 08:30
Phil Leigh wrote:

> oh - I think you only want one device handing out DHCP on your
> network...and you want everything on the same subnet (well at least you
> need to guarantee that your SC server, router and duet are all on the
> same subnet)

Other than that it's the default setting on most network devices, is
there any good reason to use DHCP for static network devices whose IP
address should never change?

--
Bill Burns
Long Island NY USA
http://ftldesign.com
Bill - Not in my book! - I never use DHCP... (but some people seem to like it)

pfarrell
2008-06-30, 08:33
Phil Leigh wrote:
> oh - I think you only want one device handing out DHCP on your
> network...and you want everything on the same subnet (well at least you
> need to guarantee that your SC server, router and duet are all on the
> same subnet)

I'll be stronger than Phil. You really *must* have only one DHCP server
on your network (altho having them provide failover is good) and you
*must* be on the same subnet.

Fix that, and I expect you will have a much nicer experience

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

andynormancx
2008-06-30, 08:35
you need to guarantee that your SC server, router and duet are all on the same subnet
Before someone reads that and takes it as gospel, you don't _need_ to have SBC + SBR + SC all on the same subnet, it just makes things easier if they are.

ftlight
2008-06-30, 08:48
Phil Leigh wrote:
> ftlight;316047 Wrote:
>> Phil Leigh wrote:
>>
>>> oh - I think you only want one device handing out DHCP on your
>>> network...and you want everything on the same subnet (well at least
>> you
>>> need to guarantee that your SC server, router and duet are all on
>> the
>>> same subnet)
>> Other than that it's the default setting on most network devices, is
>> there any good reason to use DHCP for static network devices whose IP
>> address should never change?
>>
>
> Bill - Not in my book! - I never use DHCP... (but some people seem to
> like it)
>

Me neither - I have DHCP set up only so that any guests arriving with a
laptop can get a connnection. All my PCs, printers, squeezeboxes, etc,
are on static IPs.

--
Bill Burns
Long Island NY USA
http://ftldesign.com

pfarrell
2008-06-30, 08:48
andynormancx wrote:
> Pat Wrote:
>> you*must* be on the same subnet.
> Before someone reads that and takes it as gospel, you don't _need_ to
> have SBC + SBR + SC all on the same subnet, it just makes things easier
> if they are.

OK, I'll let your weakening hold, I'll just say it
If you don't have them on the same subnet, it sometimes becomes
impossible for mortals to make work.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

pfarrell
2008-06-30, 08:54
Phil Leigh wrote:
>> Other than that it's the default setting on most network devices, is
>> there any good reason to use DHCP for static network devices whose IP
>> address should never change?

> Bill - Not in my book! - I never use DHCP... (but some people seem to
> like it)

I run DHCP on everything. Not only is it the default, but I really
dislike having to run to boxes and manage their IP settings.

But, and this is key, and where Phil and I actually agree in spirit,
I run DHCP on two linux servers (backing each other up, failover, etc.)
where I assign fixed IP addresses to every MAC address in my house. and
I run a bind/dns, so each IP address gets a nice fixed fully qualified name.

What this does is let me manage all the assignment of IP addresses in
one place, while allowing the boxes to all use DHCP

When I get a new box, I plug it in, and it gets DHCP. When a buddy
brings a laptop, they get DHCP. Yet all my boxes, (SqueezeBoxen,
Transporter, Receiver, Controller, laptops, music server, even the WiFi
access point) get fixed addresses.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

andynormancx
2008-06-30, 08:56
it sometimes becomes impossible for mortals to make work.

Thankfully most mortals aren't going to have more than one subnet ;-)

Phil Leigh
2008-06-30, 09:00
Before someone reads that and takes it as gospel, you don't _need_ to have SBC + SBR + SC all on the same subnet, it just makes things easier if they are.

Andy - I know it is not mandatory...I'm just trying to simplify things for a few people. When do you REALLY need multiple subnets at home?

Phil Leigh
2008-06-30, 09:02
Phil Leigh wrote:
>> Other than that it's the default setting on most network devices, is
>> there any good reason to use DHCP for static network devices whose IP
>> address should never change?

> Bill - Not in my book! - I never use DHCP... (but some people seem to
> like it)

I run DHCP on everything. Not only is it the default, but I really
dislike having to run to boxes and manage their IP settings.

But, and this is key, and where Phil and I actually agree in spirit,
I run DHCP on two linux servers (backing each other up, failover, etc.)
where I assign fixed IP addresses to every MAC address in my house. and
I run a bind/dns, so each IP address gets a nice fixed fully qualified name.

What this does is let me manage all the assignment of IP addresses in
one place, while allowing the boxes to all use DHCP

When I get a new box, I plug it in, and it gets DHCP. When a buddy
brings a laptop, they get DHCP. Yet all my boxes, (SqueezeBoxen,
Transporter, Receiver, Controller, laptops, music server, even the WiFi
access point) get fixed addresses.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

Well, Pat...I guess as you are doing a MAC/IP bind that's sort of an alternate way of locking things down...neat. Kind of like DHCP "one-shot" :o)

pfarrell
2008-06-30, 09:10
Phil Leigh wrote:

> Well, Pat...I guess as you are doing a MAC/IP bind that's sort of an
> alternate way of locking things down...neat. Kind of like DHCP
> "one-shot" :o)

Yes, and its easy with the usual DHCP daemons that come with all the
usual Linux distros.

I do a lot of wireless networking stuff for my day job. WiFi, bluetooth,
zigbee, etc. And I've developed a complete flaming reaction to boxes
that setup themselves as 192.168.1.1 and turn on DHCP. I've had
different boxes from different vendors do it so often it makes me mad as
hell and I'll not going to take it any more.

This is also a prime reason I run my subnet on 172.16.4.*
so that when I see a 192.168.*.*, I know its some fascist box trying to
ruin my day.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

doggieflyer
2008-06-30, 09:36
Good info everyone. Fortunately I do understand all you're saying.

Putting on my generic user hat, Logitech needs to simplify network handling because most users won't know DHCP from ABC. I'd have no clue that I was running two DHCP servers if I didn't have a bit of networking experience in my day job.

I imagine my setup is not unusual. I have a DSL router supplied by Verizon. It provides DHCP by default. You connect your computers to the router and they automatically gain a dynamic IP and connect to the internet, usually behind a default firewall built into the router. Most users will change nothing. I added on a wireless router when I got a wireless laptop. Plug it in and it all works together.

Given this scenario, consumers aren't going to know the merits of disabling DHCP on the wireless router. They go buy Squeezeboxes, get frustrated and return them.

andynormancx
2008-06-30, 10:22
Putting on my generic user hat, Logitech needs to simplify network handling because most users won't know DHCP from ABC. I'd have no clue that I was running two DHCP servers if I didn't have a bit of networking experience in my day job.

I imagine my setup is not unusual. I have a DSL router supplied by Verizon. It provides DHCP by default. You connect your computers to the router and they automatically gain a dynamic IP and connect to the internet, usually behind a default firewall built into the router. Most users will change nothing. I added on a wireless router when I got a wireless laptop. Plug it in and it all works together.

Given this scenario, consumers aren't going to know the merits of disabling DHCP on the wireless router. They go buy Squeezeboxes, get frustrated and return them.

No offence, but what exactly do you expect Logitech to be able to do about it ?

DHCP was invented to simply networking for the average user. The discovery mechanism that the SBs use (and which only works on a single subnet) was designed to make things easier for the average user. They provide a fallback mechanism (of entering the server's address manually) for those unusual cases where there are more than one subnet.

From my understanding of the DHCP protocol there isn't likely to be a foolproof way of detecting that more than one DHCP server is active. And even if there was the best the SB could was was say "help" and leave the user to sort out the mess.

A network with more than one DHCP server fighting over the same address space is broken and I don't see how Logitech can fix that*.


* I guess they could make a change to the server discovery mechanism that the SBs and SBC use, but it is hard to see a sensible change to make. It currently uses broadcasts, if you wanted to make it work without fail across subnets and firewalls then I guess you'd have to make SBR, SB, SBC and SC all go out onto the web to a SlimDevices server and register their presence with each other there.

Even then it is hard to see how you would make it work, as it would be a nightmare to determine which collection of SBR, SB, SBC and SC came from which network. Even if you got that side it it to work there is no guarantee they would be able to talk to each other on such a network even once they had discovered each other.

The only other way would be to dump TCP, DHCP et al and take the propriety route. I think it is pretty clear that would lose them more current users than it would gain them.

doggieflyer
2008-06-30, 11:11
Keep in mind I'm trying to create an all-wired network. All the squeezeboxes are wired to the same Ethernet router. Some of the receivers insist on connecting via wireless even though I wish them not to. I've unplugged the wireless outright and then the controller fails to connect to the boxes.

I expect the receivers to be able to connect to the Ethernet LAN on the same network, and the controller to connect in bridged fashion to the receivers without using the wireless. Unfortunately it's not working, which is why I'm having to deal with this dual DHCP mess.

andynormancx
2008-06-30, 11:13
Keep in mind I'm trying to create an all-wired network. All the squeezeboxes are wired to the same Ethernet router. Some of the receivers insist on connecting via wireless even though I wish them not to. I've unplugged the wireless outright and then the controller fails to connect to the boxes.

I expect the receivers to be able to connect to the Ethernet LAN on the same network, and the controller to connect in bridged fashion to the receivers without using the wireless. Unfortunately it's not working, which is why I'm having to deal with this dual DHCP mess.

Fair enough, that they probably can do something about.

doggieflyer
2008-06-30, 11:36
Amcluesent, your response is just negative and not useful. It's easy to judge when things are working well for you but my experience has been extremely painful. If you saw the thought process going into all the troubleshooting I've done, you would understand. I didn't come on to the forum and bash the product or any other users. I presented my experience as clearly as I could and I'm doing much more than an average user would to get this to work.

Phil Leigh
2008-06-30, 11:41
Amcluesent, your response is just negative and not useful. It's easy to judge when things are working well for you but my experience has been extremely painful. If you saw the thought process going into all the troubleshooting I've done, you would understand. I didn't come on to the forum and bash the product or any other users. I presented my experience as clearly as I could and I'm doing much more than an average user would to get this to work.

I think you may have hit the wrong target!
NOT Amcluesent...

doggieflyer
2008-06-30, 11:46
Not for you Phil. Someone posted a nasty response after yours but it looks like a forum admin deleted it.

Phil Leigh
2008-06-30, 12:08
Not for you Phil. Someone posted a nasty response after yours but it looks like a forum admin deleted it.

Ah...OK. Sorry.

doggieflyer
2008-07-01, 10:21
Good news! I was able to get multiple receivers working properly after ensuring all receivers and the PC running SqueezeCenter were on the same subnet. Thanks to everyone for your kind help.

Phil Leigh
2008-07-01, 12:18
Good news! I was able to get multiple receivers working properly after ensuring all receivers and the PC running SqueezeCenter were on the same subnet. Thanks to everyone for your kind help.

Hurray - another success story. Good news.

Another one for the "How to get things working 101"...

Ensure ONE subnet for everything!

maggior
2008-07-01, 14:04
Good info everyone. Fortunately I do understand all you're saying.

Putting on my generic user hat, Logitech needs to simplify network handling because most users won't know DHCP from ABC. I'd have no clue that I was running two DHCP servers if I didn't have a bit of networking experience in my day job.

I imagine my setup is not unusual. I have a DSL router supplied by Verizon. It provides DHCP by default. You connect your computers to the router and they automatically gain a dynamic IP and connect to the internet, usually behind a default firewall built into the router. Most users will change nothing. I added on a wireless router when I got a wireless laptop. Plug it in and it all works together.

Given this scenario, consumers aren't going to know the merits of disabling DHCP on the wireless router. They go buy Squeezeboxes, get frustrated and return them.

I have a very similar setup as you (right on up to the Verizon DSL router).

I have been bitten by the multiple DHCP server problem completely outside of the Squeezebox realm. I'll explain...

I have a DSL modem connected to a Linksys wireless router. I have a Verizon DSL gateway (DSL modem, router, and wireless access point all rolled into one) that they sent me. I needed a hub to expand my connections and decided to see if I could configure the Verizon gateway to act as a hub. I was able to, but I forgot to save the settings to disable the DHCP server.

So, one day my wife is trying to use her laptop (wireless and using DHCP) and cannot get to the internet. The web browser keeps showing errors. It was working just this morning!?!? I grab the laptop and check the TCP/IP settings. It was trying to use the Verizon gateway as the gateway rather than my Linksys router!

But I thought I disabled the DHCP server in the Verizon gateway!! I went into its configuration and sure enough, it was enabled. Why things worked for days after I set that up, I have no idea.

This time I disabled it and verified that it was disabled. Rebooted my wife's laptop and all was good. No problems since.

So, the point is that having multiple DHCP servers on a network will cause problems with any network device using DHCP, not just a squeezebox.

JJZolx
2008-07-01, 15:02
I have a DSL modem connected to a Linksys wireless router. I have a Verizon DSL gateway (DSL modem, router, and wireless access point all rolled into one) that they sent me. I needed a hub to expand my connections and decided to see if I could configure the Verizon gateway to act as a hub. I was able to, but I forgot to save the settings to disable the DHCP server.

If you just needed additional network ports you should have added a network switch, not a router.

chill
2008-07-01, 15:29
If you just needed additional network ports you should have added a network switch, not a router.

Quite true, but if you need a switch but have a spare router sitting in the loft, why not use its built in switch.

I had exactly this situation - I needed a switch to make my SB3 work with a new homeplug, but the shops were shut. I had an old ADSL router in the loft, so used that to good effect. It is still working fine. Funnily enough, I had exactly the same problem that a few people are reporting, in that the router was still dishing out IP addresses via DHCP, and caused my SB3 to behave unpredictably until I cottoned on.

maggior
2008-07-01, 20:00
If you just needed additional network ports you should have added a network switch, not a router.

Yes, you are right. However, as Chill pointed out, you can use a router in a pinch - as long as you configure it correctly. It was sitting around collecting dust so I figured I'd put it to some good use.

This was a temporary arrangement as well as a learning experience for me. I wasn't sure how many ports I wanted to get or if I wanted to make other changes. When a friend from work offered me a 16 port 100 BaseT switch today for $20, I realized it was worth waiting :-). I won't be wanting for more ports any time soon.

JJZolx
2008-07-01, 20:09
Yes, you are right. However, as Chill pointed out, you can use a router in a pinch - as long as you configure it correctly. It was sitting around collecting dust so I figured I'd put it to some good use.

This was a temporary arrangement as well as a learning experience for me. I wasn't sure how many ports I wanted to get or if I wanted to make other changes. When a friend from work offered me a 16 port 100 BaseT switch today for $20, I realized it was worth waiting :-). I won't be wanting for more ports any time soon.

When someone asks 'why not' we can point them at this thread and the experiences of yourself and chill. It's easy to screw up something that would otherwise be extemely simple with the right (and less expensive) equipment.

pfarrell
2008-07-01, 20:14
JJZolx wrote:
> It's easy to screw up something
> that would otherwise be extemely simple with the right (and less
> expensive) equipment.

To be clear, I think what Jim is trying to say is:

Sometimes fancy equipment can make an easy job hard. Many times, a dumb
switch or even a simple hub is a better solution than a fancy all
powerful router.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

amcluesent
2008-07-02, 05:28
>I was able to get multiple receivers working properly after ensuring all receivers and the PC running SqueezeCenter were on the same subnet.<

IMHO a note of apology to the Slimdevices team would be appropriate, after claiming their product set-up was 'horrific' and that you 'imagine the average consumer would return this product immediately'.

Phil Leigh
2008-07-02, 11:43
Good Point - perhaps you could change the thread title to
"horrific experience caused by self-inflicted injury to my network"...or something like that :o)

ymilner
2008-07-03, 00:14
Just one request to the OP: please change the subject of this thread to reflect the current problem status :)