|
|
|
Hi
Are there any suggestions for a dual band router, 5Ghz and 2.4GHz simultaneously for cable/FTTC.
I'm looking on ebay to get cheaper and looking under £50
|
|
|
Are there any suggestions for a dual band router, 5Ghz and 2.4GHz simultaneously for cable/FTTC.
I'm looking on ebay to get cheaper and looking under £50
Under £50 will be hard - even the second hand Apple Airport Extreme's (5th Gen) that do both bands, go for £65 and higher. They're £134 new.
The Asus RT-N66U is the cheapest new - £109 on Amazon.
James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
|
|
|
|
I've been looking at DGND3700. Is there a v1 and v2 though, v2 being more reliable?
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
I've been looking at DGND3700. Is there a v1 and v2 though, v2 being more reliable?
New its the same price as the ASUS. I'm not generally a fan of Netgear as I've seen firmware issues on enough of their kit.
James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
|
|
|
|
Tplink seem to be getting good reviews and they cheap but not sure if its too good to be true
|
|
|
|
Any further recommendations?
|
|
|
Have a TP-LINK TL-WDR4300 downstairs in daily use (have not had the time for a full review) but while not as fully featured as the Asus RT-N66U it does the core job of router well.
With Ethernet was able to push 800 Mbps in either direction over the WAN/LAN interface.
Wireless its not the best but same room 83 Mbps on 2.4 and 73 on 5GHz. Range of 2.4GHz was as good as the best I've had.
Looking at retail price this model is not their cheapest, but the WAN/LAN performance is usually the big difference on the cheapest models, as they use slower/cheaper CPU and memory.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Looking at retail price this model is not their cheapest, but the WAN/LAN performance is usually the big difference on the cheapest models, as they use slower/cheaper CPU and memory.
A friend of mine has a TPLINK box with 8 ethernet ports and no WiFi and I'm pretty sure its this that is limiting his cable speeds (should get 60meg, but he's getting about 34meg).
James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
|
|
|
Have a TP-LINK TL-WDR4300 downstairs in daily use (have not had the time for a full review) but while not as fully featured as the Asus RT-N66U it does the core job of router well.
With Ethernet was able to push 800 Mbps in either direction over the WAN/LAN interface.
Andrew, do you have any comment on what the correct MTU setting is with this router for an Infinity FTTP connection?
For PPPoE connections the TL-WDR4300 defaults to 1480 and won't accept a value above 1492...
1480 is the MTU setting that the WindowsXP stack uses if it is negotiating the connection directly itself (for example if you plug straight into the ONT), but 1500 is used on an ethernet LAN normally. Does it matter, do you know?
I presume your WAN-LAN routing figure was pure ethernet, was it, rather than PPPoE on the WAN side?
|
|
|
For PPPoE connections the TL-WDR4300 defaults to 1480 and won't accept a value above 1492...
This is correct as most routers don't support the extensions to the PPPoE specification (but BT does) that allow 1500byte packets (and thus a bigger PPPoE packet of 1508 bytes, as the PPPoE header is 8 bytes).
More than you wanted to know at AAISP:
http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-mtu.html
James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, James. It's a good, thorough explanation.
I've found that changing the default to 1492 works without any issues, so I'm leaving it at that.
1480 seemed to cause timeouts, but that may have been unrelated - I'm not going to investigate it any further, because life is short after all! 
For anyone else who may be interested, the TP Link TL-WDR4300 is a great router in my experience so far.
Upgrading to the latest firmware (3.13.31) gives you a very useful guest wireless network facility and the printer sharing feature, although it requires a client controller utility to be installed on each PC and isn't a proper print server, is actually perfect for SOHO networks because it accommodates cheap host-based laser printers very well, including things like manual duplex printing in the HP driver. The printer client application even works on Win2K, despite claiming XP to be the earliest supported version of Windows. The built-in DNS forwarder is also lightning fast. Haven't tested the media or file sharing features as yet, mind you.
|
|
|
I would definitely recommend the The Asus RT-N66U. This is absolutely top-notch and selling like hot cakes.
Asus RT-N66U
ASUS Amazon
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, James. It's a good, thorough explanation.
np, AAISP is very good at documentation, its just a shame the infrastructure means their prices are too high for most (e.g. I use ~150gb a month, and BT is £26/m but AAISP would be over £60/m !).
For anyone else who may be interested, the TP Link TL-WDR4300 is a great router in my experience so far.
Looks like a very nice set of features router, very similar to the ASUS RT-N66U, and cheaper which is always a bonus
James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
|
|
|
Andrew, do you have any comment on what the correct MTU setting is with this router for an Infinity FTTP connection?
Just wanted to update this thread with the definitive word from BT. The correct MTU setting for 3rd party routers on BT fibre broadband products (FTTP/FTTC) is 1492.
Why am I having problems getting web pages when using a third party router?
If you have fibre/BT Infinity, are having problems getting web pages, and you're using your own router instead of a BT Business Hub, then you'll have to change your router's MTU setting to 1492 and make sure that it's set to PPPoE mode. This way you'll be able to view complex and dynamic web pages normally.
Since some sites like Hotmail / Outlook.com (still) don't do Path MTU Discovery properly (they discard the ICMP packets telling them to reduce the size of the packets they are sending) it can help to set the MTU of all the computers on the LAN behind the router to use an MTU of 1492 rather than the usual ethernet MTU of 1500. I've certainly found that Outlook.com doesn't work properly otherwise.
I've also found that a useful little command line utility for Windows called MTUPath can help to simplify troubleshooting any problem. Hope it may help others too, along with the info above.
|
|
|
|
One further tip about the TP Link TL-WDR4300 router which may be of use to know is that Skype doesn't always work correctly unless the hardware NAT feature is turned off.
Hardware NAT is supposed to increase LAN-WAN routing speed quite significantly, so it would be interesting to know whether Andrew's 800Mbps figure was with that on or off (or NAT off altogether).
Apparently, OpenWRT doesn't support the hardware NAT feature at all because it would lead to a lot of messy software bodging, so it isn't clear whether the TP Link firmware does in fact include a lot of messy software bodging to accommodate it!
You can tell whether or not hardware NAT is turned on because it introduces an extra non-responsive hop in traceroutes after the router's internal IP address.
|
|
|
Just wanted to update this thread with the definitive word from BT. The correct MTU setting for 3rd party routers on BT fibre broadband products (FTTP/FTTC) is 1492.
BT Business routers default to 1492 automatically - but so many people change it to 1500 and wonder why they have problems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
Just wanted to update this thread with the definitive word from BT. The correct MTU setting for 3rd party routers on BT fibre broadband products (FTTP/FTTC) is 1492.
They say that because 1492 is the maximum MTU that all third-party routers support over a PPPoE connection. I haven't yet found one that supports RFC 4638 out of the box (apart from BT's own HomeHub).
It's possible to patch OpenWRT to support it, and if they ever upgrade their rp-pppoe plugin to 3.11 from 3.8 (released in 2006!) it would "just work" for many routers since a lot already support jumbo frames.
Tomato may eventually get support too.
Since some sites like Hotmail / Outlook.com (still) don't do Path MTU Discovery properly (they discard the ICMP packets telling them to reduce the size of the packets they are sending) it can help to set the MTU of all the computers on the LAN behind the router to use an MTU of 1492 rather than the usual ethernet MTU of 1500. I've certainly found that Outlook.com doesn't work properly otherwise.
Shouldn't your router be doing this for you without you having to mess around with client MTUs? I thought that was the entire purpose of MSS clamping.
For good simultaneous dual band routers i'd say it's hard to beat the Asus RT-N66U. Saw one second-hand on Ebay last week for £44. Seriously considered it as my RT-N16, running Tomato, has been good to me over the years, but in the end i picked up a TP-Link WDR4900.
The WDR4900 is very similar to the WDR4300 but is actually running on an 800MHz PPC chip, rather than the MIPs architecture most routers run on. It's supported by OpenWRT in trunk and has been running fine for me so far (i'm still tweaking settings though, so it's not in production use yet). I'm interested to see how the CoDel stuff in OpenWRT works in comparison to Tomato's QOS.
|
|
|
|
Left my WDR4900 running an iperf test while i was in the shower this morning.
My very unscientific test results were that it averaged around 394Mb/sec WAN-to-LAN. This is with NAT enabled (but not HW NAT as OpenWRT doesn't support it).
The OpenWRT wiki page for the WDR4300 has someone benchmarking the NAT WAN-to-LAN performance (using http, so not an apples to apples comparison to my iperf test) at 300Mb/sec, so the WDR4900 is a fair bit faster.
Not sure how much of a hit the throughput would take over a PPPoE connection, but since i can't afford a FTTP connection it's a moot point anyway.
|
|
|
Thanks, rhetherington, that's really good info. Well 300-odd Mbps is sufficient to support all but the most unaffordable FTTP, even if PPPoE and HTTP knock it down to less than half that as a worst case.
Is there an easy way to establish a PPPoE connection locally for testing, so that there is no limit from ISP throughput, do you know?...
Using an Android device on the wireless LAN, the speedguide.net analyzer shows an MSS of 1452, so I'm assuming MSS Clamping is working. I wonder whether Timestamping might mess that up by introducing larger headers and reducing the real MSS, but maybe I've misunderstood the effect of that. The PCs have timestamps off, but they seem to be on on Android by default.
It would certainly be a better solution all round to rely on BT's support of baby jumbo frames. Hopefully TP Link will get with the programme and release a firmware update as FTTC and FTTP - and therefore PPPoE - become more and more common. It isn't very sensible for people to be encountering random little problems with using 3rd party routers as a matter of course, and it isn't practical to change LAN MTU settings on a large network, nor to change them for all devices even on a small one. I wonder why they chose to have it default to 1480, not even 1492, though?...
|
|
|
TP-Link have published some WAN-LAN figures, including for PPPoE.
They reckon the TL-WDR4300 can route 935Mbps WAN-LAN over PPPoE!
It doesn't say whether that is using NAT, SPI etc., but if your test is anything to go by, rhetherington, it sounds like they may be special figures from fantasy land!
Interestingly, the Hardware NAT feature seems to alter the ToS and DS IP header fields.
|
|
|
|
There's no way those PPPoE numbers are correct!
I spent a bit of time today setting up a PPPoE server and the results for my WDR4900 (which should be faster than the WDR4300) using OpenWRT were 110Mbps.
However, the server was setup in a virtual machine using virtual bridged NICs. Now that i know how to set the server up i'll do it again sometime over the next couple of days using a live linux image.
Just to get a picture of the PPP overhead i connected my laptop (Core 2 Duo T7100) directly to the machine hosting the virtual PPPoE server (Core i3 3225) and did a couple of quick tests:
Without PPPoE: 724Mbps
With PPPoE: 86Mbps
Pretty shocking results, but i'm convinced the virtual machine is slowing things down a fair bit too.
I'll explore things a bit further in a couple of days.
|
|
|
Simultaneous dual-band is hard to find under £50 new.
One I can think of is the TP-LINK TL-WDR3500 N600:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B009EOQPZC/ref=ox...
Though I wouldn't buy it. Have read some reliability and performance issues.
The TP-Link TL-WR2543ND would be better, though it's dual-band it's not simultaneous (only one radio):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006B3BM9I/ref=ox...
Instead I would recommend saving up for the Asus RT-N66U.
|
|
|
Are you on commission with ASUS?
The reason I ask is that you registered a couple of hours ago and all you have done is recommend the ASUS RT-N66U, and I don't think you own one.
Edited by deleted (Tue 02-Jul-13 19:54:01)
|
|
|
Just done a bit more testing and it does seem that the virtual machine was adding significant overhead.
The iperf and PPPoE servers are run on an Intel Core i3 3225 with Atheros AR8151 Gigabit NIC using Linux Mint 15 (32 bit) from a live USB stick.
The iperf client is a Thinkpad X61 Intel Core 2 Due T7100 with an Intel 82566MM Gigabit NIC using Linux Mint 15 (32 bit) installed to SSD.
The Router is a TP-Link WDR4900 running OpenWRT trunk (r37018 from 26/06/2013).
I previously benchmarked the WDR4900 in a bog-standard DHCP with NAT configuration at 394Mbps using this exact same setup of machines.
With PPPoE i managed to average 340Mbps.
Even though this exceeds the current BT maximum speeds for FTTP i don't think this router is suited to such fast connections. While achieving these speeds access to the router itself (using both http and ssh) was extremely sluggish. A "top" showed 97% for sirq. And this is without any QOS or anything else running.
Still, 340Mbps is pretty impressive considering others have reported that a high-end router like the RT-N66u tops out at around 200Mbps so, for anything other than the 330Mbps FTTP product, the WDR4900 running OpenWRT should be more than suitable.
For anyone wishing to replicate my test or test their own routers here is the guide i used to setup the PPPoE server (make sure the user you add to chap-secrets is a valid local user on the machine else you'll get an authentication error. Stumped me for ages).
The iperf commands are simple:
iperf -s
on the server, and
iperf -c SERVER_IP_ADDRESS -P 2 -i 10 -f m -t 600
on the client for a 10 minute test.
|
|
|
Wow - I'm dead impressed!
That's invaluable, and really interesting information, rhetherington. Both on the router performance and the PPPoE test setup.
Certainly a vastly more helpful insight than just saying this or that product is better! 
Thank you so much for putting in all the time and effort to figure it out, do the testing and post the results.
The TP Link routers are certainly very good value and seem to do a good job, even if they aren't quite as flashy or feature-rich as the Asus.
One little annoyance I've found with the stock firmware is that you can't turn off STP (which shouldn't generally be needed on a home or SOHO network). The most visible result is that on Android devices the little orange receive data arrow flashes constantly when they are connected to the TL-WDR4300's wireless network, which doesn't sound like much of a problem but is incredibly irritating!
Presumably it also prevents the Android radio entering power saving mode and so drains the battery faster, although I haven't measured that.
It means the LEDs on any connected switch flash constantly too, even when there's no 'real' data on the network. With that and the broadcast UDP packets the TL-WDR4300 sends out every 3 seconds to advertise the printer sharing service, the thing generates a whole 6KB of traffic per minute just doing nothing! I don't think that will really be reducing the throughput, though
From what I read briefly when googling about it, the Asus routers apparently do the same thing.
|
|
|
Thanks, very useful info! I might have to try a similar test on my machines, I have an X61 (same CPU !) lying around here, and a MacBook Air, and a Win7 desktop, so probably use the X61 and the desktop booted from memory stick - nice test!
James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
|
|
|
Hi rhetherington,
Interesting tests, thanks for posting them!
For anyone wishing to replicate my test or test their own routers here is the guide i used to setup the PPPoE server (make sure the user you add to chap-secrets is a valid local user on the machine else you'll get an authentication error. Stumped me for ages).
Removing the login parameter from /etc/ppp/pppoe-server-options should solve that:
| Text | 1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
| # PPP options for the PPPoE Server
# LOC: GPL#require-pap
require-chap#login
lcp-echo-interval 10lcp-echo-failure 2
ms-dns 4.2.2.1ms-dns 4.2.2.3
netmask 255.255.255.0defaultroute
noipdefaultusepeerdns |
See man pppd:
login Use the system password database for authenticating the peer using PAP, and record the user in the system wtmp file. Note that the peer must have an entry in the /etc/ppp/pap-secrets file as well as the system password database to be allowed access. See also the enable-session option.
cheers, a
|
|
|
Haven't had chance to do any tests myself as yet, but just thought I'd quickly post some other information that came my way in the meantime, in case it is of any use to others.
Firstly, there is apparently a free (for personal use) PPPoE server which can be installed on a bog standard WindowsXP client computer for testing purposes. Doesn't work on later versions, and I can't personally see how to download it from the website, since clicking the "agree" button does nothing for me, but I may be doing something wrong: I only visited briefly. If anyone wants to look into it instead of using Linux or MacOS, it's called RASPPPOE, by Robert Schlabbach.
EDIT: There's a working download link for RASPPPOE on a US site run by Bob Carrick. Also some further instructions which may or may not be helpful here, here and here. All of it only useful if intending to use an old version of Windows for testing, though, which may not give the highest possible throughput, depending on the hardware.
Secondly, re. the default PPPoE MTU of 1480 rather than 1492 (or even 1500, since that extension of the standard would be supported by BT) in the stock TP Link TL-WDR4300 firmware, this is why WindowsXP was originally configured to use that value, according to Microsoft Technet:
The 20 bytes of overhead [compared to a standard 1500 byte ethernet frame] consist of the PPPoE header (6 bytes), the largest possible outer PPP header (4 bytes), the largest possible Multilink PPP header (4 bytes), the largest possible PPP header for compression and encryption (4 bytes), and the PPP header that identifies the actual packet being sent (2 bytes).
"Largest possible" being the main explanatory phrase there, I think.
Edited by deleted (Thu 04-Jul-13 18:52:39)
|
|
|
Interestingly, the Hardware NAT feature seems to alter the ToS and DS IP header fields.
Belated correction: this is rubbish, based on an incorrect assumption! Apologies.
|
|
|
|
Commenting out the login parameter does indeed solve the problem.
I finished configuring my WDR4900 on Friday and decided to run the tests again now that all my settings are done.
Exact same endpoint setup as before.
With the WAN type set to DHCP and using NAT i managed to hit 416Mbps. This is 20Mbps faster than with default settings and the only thing i can think of to account for it is that in my setup i'm no longer bridging the wired and wireless LANs. Instead the two wifi radios are bridged together and then the LAN and WLAN are on two different subnets (/25 each) with routing between them. According to the CeroWRT developers routing does increase performance over bridging, but i had assumed it would only be noticeable on the WLAN. Seems not.
Over PPPoE i got 326Mbps, which isn't too bad considering everything is now fully configured.
Also did a couple of tests using Wifi. Consistent 75Mbps using 2.4GHz 802.11n (20MHz channel) and 125Mbps using 5GHz 802.11n (40MHz channel). I only have two antennas in my Thinkpad, so results may be improved slightly with three. As expected, results remained the same using both DHCP and PPPoE on the router.
|
|
|
|
Is anyone able to confirm if - like the WDR4300 - the WDR4900 has been or will be given the guest network functionality via a firmware update?
Presumably there's no reason why it couldn't be done, unless it would conflict with their model price segment differentiation.
|
|
|
|
TP Link are pretty helpful and responsive if you email them. They're based in China, though, so there is a time difference, and occasionally a bit of a language gap.
They promised to include better options for a higher PPPoE MTU and for turning STP off in the next update for the WDR4300 - although they did also say it wasn't a high priority improvement because they hadn't received much customer feedback on those issues.
Time will tell, I guess...
|
|
|
I followed rhetherington's instructions to get some numbers for the TL-WDR4300 with TP Link firmware v3.13.31 (there is a later version available).
Slightly different hardware. I had a Core i5 on the WAN side, but only an aging Pentium 4 on the LAN side, so it can probably do (a lot?) better in truth.
Here are the settings and results:
WAN Connection: PPPoE
MTU: 1492 (pppoe-server parameter -m 1452 as well as changing the router and LAN PC defaults)
Hardware NAT: On
SPI Firewall: Off
DOS/Flood Protection: Off
Statistics: Off
iPerf Throughput WAN-LAN: 662Mbps
WAN Connection: PPPoE
MTU: 1492 (pppoe-server parameter -m 1452 as well as changing the router and LAN PC defaults)
Hardware NAT: Off
Software NAT: On
SPI Firewall: On
DOS Protection: On but with only disable WAN ping selected,
ie. Flood Protection: Off
Statistics: Off
iPerf Throughput WAN-LAN: 279Mbps
Quite a difference between the two extremes!
All fine for Infinity, though, and likely(?) that it can in fact reach the 330Mbps of the most expensive FTTP option using only software NAT if tested with a more recent desktop PC.
There's a simulation of an earlier version of the firmware web interface (without guest wireless network) on the TP Link website so you can see the possible combinations of settings in context.
Nowhere does it say exactly what the SPI firewall tracks or inspects over and above the NAT table, unfortunately...
And I also can't find any information about how many sessions the TL-WDR4300 may be able to handle simultaneously. Asus are quoting 300,000 for both the RT-N65U and the RT-N66U...
Hope all that's a useful contribution, anyway. I've certainly had no problems with the TL-WDR4300 so far. I haven't properly tested the wireless performance, but it seems to work fine everywhere, even with the power turned right down, so I'm happy!
|
|
|
It looks like TP Link have gone for a maximum conntrack table size of 2 13 with the TL-WDR4300 - so only 8000-odd entries. Is that just the Linux default, though?
I don't know how much it matters, but Asus obviously decided bigger was better! May be just a marketing thing, although I did read somewhere that you get better performance for entry access if conntrack_max and hashsize are set higher (memory allowing) even if you don't need to track a huge number of connections...
There's a tool available at smallnetbuilder.com which sets up UDP connections until your router can't track any more, which is what I used:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/mydownloads/max_sessi...
|
|
|
It looks like TP Link have gone for a maximum conntrack table size of 213 with the TL-WDR4300 - so only 8000-odd entries. Is that just the Linux default, though?
Just a few years ago a maximum of 200 simultaneous connections on a consumer router was considered "good".
I don't know how much it matters, but Asus obviously decided bigger was better! May be just a marketing thing, although I did read somewhere that you get better performance for entry access if conntrack_max and hashsize are set higher (memory allowing) even if you don't need to track a huge number of connections...
Stick Openwrt on it and you can easily set your conntrack up to 128,000 or higher. I haven't tested the absolute maximum but anything over 8000 is ludicrous anyway.
For the record Openwrt also gives you considerably better software NAT performance than the stock firmware, though last I recall these TP-Link routers' stock firmware was usually just a really old and slightly modified version of Openwrt anyway.
Edited by deleted (Fri 09-Aug-13 10:57:12)
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
