Test your router/IGD for Vista compatibility
Barb Bowman
--
Barb Bowman
MS Windows-MVP
Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
Papa
or desktop computer. Can you explain why a router may not be compatible with
a Vista computer? Shouldn't any router work with any computer's operating
system? I have a home network in which one computer is running under Windows
XP, one is running under Ubuntu, one is running under Linspire, and one is
running under Vista. The only one that has encountered any router problems
is the one running under Vista.
"Barb Bowman" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5cfk039lf30f30okk...@4ax.com...
Kerry Brown
support. Basic connectivity should work in most cases but some of the
advanced networking features may need to be turned off or some parameters
changed. Try the test. The tests include some explanations of what is being
tested and why.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
"Papa" <biki...@my.fun> wrote in message
news:uaW16FUc...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Barb Bowman
never before so if UPnP is not implemented properly, it could be an
issue. Vista doesn't like symmetric NATs. Even if the router fails
the IGD test, it may still work ok for some people.
Papa
Some may not understand the meaning of terms like UPnP (Universal Plug and
Play ??), symmetric NATs (creation of a mapping based on source IP address
and port number as well as the destination IP address and port number ??) ,
and UGDs (Ulteo General Daemon ??). Does Microsoft and other organizations
involved in computer software and hardware development really expect the
average computer user to know what these terms mean and how to use them? I
can assure you, most (including me) do not.
This must change if networking for home users is to continue. Far too many
details are left dangling (with no help from the OS "HELP" function) -
forcing the user to do an inordinate amount of research.
"Barb Bowman" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ru0l03ljdaah634ik...@4ax.com...
Papa
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eQIpqVUc...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Barb Bowman
leads to
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/using/tools/igd/moreinfo.mspx
the explanations there are pretty good.
what do you think?
Papa
least described in non-technical terms. The problem is, there is really no
connection (pardon the pun) between the definitions and the implementation
of those definitions.
"Barb Bowman" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nkal031puc2km0d6q...@4ax.com...
Karl Froelich [MS]
What you are describing is what we called the "So What" scenario, if I'm
understanding you correctly (i.e. "So What?" if UPnP is unsupported).
Obviously, we're a bunch of gearheads and it makes total sense to us (
8-) ). It would be very helpful feedback for going forward if you could
be very explicit about what you'd preferr to see, and maybe an example of
what you mean by "Connection between the definitions and the
implementation.."
This is pretty geeky stuff, and we wanted to make it understandable and
accessible, so we worked hard (Really!) trying to make it meaningful.
As to why we did this, and why a router might not work, here is the
abstract of a whitepaper I'm writing (but remember, the audience of the
whitepaper tends to be gearheads too, so it might confuse even more):
"Much of the current market of retail-grade Internet Gateway Devices
(Hereafter IGD's, aka NAT's, Routers, AP's) has grown and evolved during the
ascendancy of Windows XP. In this regard, Windows XP has become the "Gold
Standard" against which IGD's are measured. Changes in the networking
stack between Windows XP and Windows Vista expose bugs in router firmware
which were hitherto obscured. Online router testing is an easy and
lightweight method to allow vendors and consumers to ensure their IGD's work
within the scope of feature RFC's and are sufficiently robust."
RFC's (Request for comment) are the formal standards that define how the
internet works. Routers which are solidly RFC compliant have no trouble
with Vista.
A big problem multiplier is also with network adapter drivers, especially
wireless. There are a million places where a driver can be out - or on the
edge - of RFC compliance, which can expose or exacerbate a problem in a
router.
Cheers,
k.
"Papa" <biki...@my.fun> wrote in message
news:e1t9z%23WcHH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Papa
What I mean by "Connection between the definitions and the implementation"
is that knowing the definition of each technical term is unfortunately not
bridging the gap toward making networking operational. The software Wizards
built into an OS are far too often a flop in affording help for the user
because they only address the most common network problems. In many user
efforts, it turns out to be a long, tedious hit or miss task before the goal
of networking is finally accomplished. In short, there are too many protocol
variables required in networking, and too many procedures to follow.
In my view, a joint effort by network-related hardware and software
developers should be organized in order to simplify networking for future
computer users. Maybe this is already happening. I hope so.
"Karl Froelich [MS]" <ka...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C1180833-049C-4A19...@microsoft.com...
Barb Bowman
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:01:11 -0500, srod...@cableone.net wrote:
>Wow. I guess I picked a good router. Supported 6 for 6. D-Link
>DIR-655.
>
>Steve
>
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 06:04:08 -0400, Barb Bowman <ba...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>As you know, a router is an external device that is not part of a notebook
>or desktop computer. Can you explain why a router may not be compatible with
>a Vista computer?
If you run the test, it documents what it is testing for and why.
>Shouldn't any router work with any computer's operating system?
Yes, it should. However, networking standards evolve, and a new OS
may make use of new standards. It may work fine without these, but
there may be some reduction in OS functionality or performance.
In the case of Vista, IPv6 support is prolly a big part of the
picture. If the router is IPv4 only, then Vista should work as IPv4,
but if a user reads about some Vista feature that needs IPv6 (or
rather, may apply only to IPv6) then lack of that will explain why
that particular feature does not appear.
>I have a home network in which one computer is running under Windows
>XP, one is running under Ubuntu, one is running under Linspire, and one is
>running under Vista. The only one that has encountered any router problems
>is the one running under Vista.
What problems has it had?
My router fails uPnP because I block that at the firewall; it does
50-60 concurrent sessions, short of the target of 80 that the test
would like to see. Two other tests (traffic congestion and scaling)
couldn't be tested as I ran the test from XP Pro; these are Vista-only
things (or maybe just the testing is Vista-only).
Nice tool, nice explanatory text (something I see as a Vista benefit;
far more lucid explanations of tech things, without too much
over-gloss). Thanks, Barb Bowman!
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Who is General Failure and
why is he reading my disk?
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Karl Froelich [MS]
> couldn't be tested as I ran the test from XP Pro; these are Vista-only
> things (or maybe just the testing is Vista-only).
>
This is becuase the XP networking stack doesn't support those features, so
they (obviously) can't be tested.
k.
btw, there is nothing magic about 80; we just felt it was a reasonable
threshold.
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquir...@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:9u0o0396roqv6uofe...@4ax.com...
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
> Two other tests (traffic congestion and scaling)
>> couldn't be tested as I ran the test from XP Pro; these are Vista-only
>> things (or maybe just the testing is Vista-only).
>This is becuase the XP networking stack doesn't support those features, so
>they (obviously) can't be tested.
Fair enough. Wasn't sure whether the functionality absence applied
only to the ability to test, or the relevance of the test, or both.
>btw, there is nothing magic about 80; we just felt it was a reasonable
>threshold.
Kinda echoes with Port 80 too :-)
Thanks for your earlier explanations, and I've also found that "there
are routers, and routers" even without WiFi or Vista in the frame.
I supplied a particular type of router (Surecom) to two clients; one
complained it was "slow" with two XP PCs on it, and the other that
some local sites (including his own ISP's home page) could not be
accessed. The two clients used different ISPs, and WiFi wasn't a
feature in any sites tested (or within the routers' feature set)
I tested the second client's router at my site using both the client's
XP PC and my own, and got repro. I tried the first client's router
with the second client's ISP settings and got repro, so it wasn't just
one duff router. Then I used a different router (Chronos) with the
second client's ISP settings and it worked fine on his and my PCs.
Well, that was a surprise - I thought at this most basic level of
functionality (PPPoE, NAT, DHCP pass-through DNS etc., firewall off,
no fancy settings) that anything with a pulse would work the same way.
Thanks for your work on making networking easier to use; I've seen
some "help, I'm mystified" posts that I suspect are from newbies
receiving click-by-click advice that's geared to the XP UI.
One thing I'd like to see, is immediate visual UI feedback as to
whether a share is "full" or "read only", e.g. a red "hand" for full
shares and the usual blue "hand" for read-only shares.
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Bruce Sanderson
Can't say I've noticed any problems! 4 wired computers, occasional wireless
laptop, mixture of various Windows versions including Vista (32 and 64 bit),
Windows Server 2003 R2, virtual machines in VS 2005 R2 SP1 etc.
--
Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
"Barb Bowman" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5cfk039lf30f30okk...@4ax.com...
Barb Bowman
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:41:45 -0700, "Bruce Sanderson"
<bsan...@newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
>MS MN-700 - passed all except the UPnP test - router is several years old.
>
>Can't say I've noticed any problems! 4 wired computers, occasional wireless
>laptop, mixture of various Windows versions including Vista (32 and 64 bit),
>Windows Server 2003 R2, virtual machines in VS 2005 R2 SP1 etc.
--
Barb Bowman
Gary
On 30-Mar-2007, "Bruce Sanderson" <bsan...@newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> MS MN-700 - passed all except the UPnP test - router is several years old.
>
> Can't say I've noticed any problems! 4 wired computers, occasional
> wireless
> laptop, mixture of various Windows versions including Vista (32 and 64
> bit),
> Windows Server 2003 R2, virtual machines in VS 2005 R2 SP1 etc.
>
> --
> Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
> http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
>
> It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
I had problems with IE7 in Vista with some sites that pages cannot be
displayed since installing Vista and I would click the link again and it
would load. I ran the online test and it failed the 80 concurrent
connections so I decided to get another router. I bought a Linksys WRT300N
and it passed all the tests put did not run the UPNP test. I have not had no
problem with IE7 loading web site any more. It was my Watchguard Edge W5
Firewall causing the problems. I had no problems with WinXP with the
Watchguard. Routers can be a problem with Vista.
Bruce Sanderson wrote:
>
> MS MN-700 - passed all except the UPnP test - router is several years
?
Joe Guidera
You mentioned that Vista doesn't "like" SYMMETRIC NAT. What specifically is
it that Vista doesn't like about SYMMETRIC NAT?
As that's the most prevalent form of NAT on the planet, and MOST routers
don't support Teredo, what is Microsoft expecting everyone to do? I see
there are roughly 10 or so routers that are certified for Vista (and most of
them are problematic for other reasons in todays broadband environment) does
Microsoft expect everyone to replace their current enterprise class
equipment with the home equipment shown as certified?
Joe
"Barb Bowman" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ru0l03ljdaah634ik...@4ax.com...
Joe Guidera
within Windows Vista based on each test result. In other words, with the
exception of one mention of Windows Meeting Space there's no connection
between the tests and their impacts on your Windows Vista experience, what
should work and what might or might not work.
A link from the NAT test, for example, to the technical document on Teredo
while interesting, isn't really doing much to tell the average home user
what they should expect (or for that matter what they should be asking their
hardware manufacturer for when they purchase equipment).
I also find it interesting that not a single business class device is listed
as certified or works with Vista despite many of those devices having
end-to-end support for IPV6 (which is what you're really after) since
roughly 2000-2001.
I took a quick look for Cisco Systems certified devices (as an example) and
not a single device is listed (though several Cisco-Linksys LLC devices were
listed).. I assume this is because either the Winqual page is being
targeted at end users or that those devices have not yet been tested?
I certainly appreciate the automated test. It's definitely a step in the
right direction. The same sort of thing needs to be incorporated into Vista
diagnostics itself (for example the "diagnose" function in Vista should be
able to tell the end user what it tested and what the results were - right
now it tries to dumb-down results and just tells you things like - unplug
your router or reset your adapter - but doesn't tell you what it tried to
test and what the results were - which is a disservice to the end user as it
doesn't inform them of what they need to do in the future to avoid a
problem).
Joe
"Karl Froelich [MS]" <ka...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C1180833-049C-4A19...@microsoft.com...
Barb Bowman
Karl Froelich [MS]
didn't test enterprise-grade equipment, becuase that is generally of higher
quality. We realize that is a hole that wasn't covered, but with the
resources we had, the retail space (and problems) are HUGE compared to the
enterprise/business space.
K.
"Joe Guidera" <jgui...@remove.msn.com> wrote in message
news:2F9F7678-F2B9-4CD5...@microsoft.com...
Bruce Sanderson
refresh, but I get this both at home (the MS MN-700) and also at work where
there is "enterprise class" switches and router, so I have not mentally
ascribed these symptoms to the MN-700 router.
--
Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
"Gary" <ze...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uoHZZdrc...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Gary
On 4-Apr-2007, "Bruce Sanderson" <bsan...@newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> Interesting. Sometimes IE complains about web sites but is OK after a
> refresh, but I get this both at home (the MS MN-700) and also at work
> where
> there is "enterprise class" switches and router, so I have not mentally
> ascribed these symptoms to the MN-700 router.
>
> --
> Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
> http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
>
> It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
I never gave it any thought that my router was the problem in Vista. I
installed Vista the day after it was released and had the problem up until
last week. When I ran the Microsoft's Vista test for routers and it failed
two of the tests that's when I decided to try the WRT300N and have not had
no problem with any web site loading. People should be running that test if
they have problem with web site loading in Vista. I now know router's could
cause problem's in Vista.
Ric Sterling
in Layman terms..so us common user can understand..
I cant get my printer to work with my vitsa on laptop to work with my xp