Windows 7 incompatible router: is such thing exists?

[zzz2496]

As the topic says... I've read several times in chev65's posts (I don't remember which/where/when) but he said something about routers that are incompatible with Windows 7... Is such router exist? I mean - for those with computer networking knowledge background, a router is effectively an independent device. It can be another computer, or some network appliance all together. What connects a router to Windows 7 is network protocol. As far as I know, there are only several network protocols that are supported by Windows 7, specifically - Ethernet/TCP/IP based protocol. There are some other protocols like Frame Relay, HDLC, FC, and many others - but mainstream users won't even know that those other protocols exists, and many consumer class hardware most of the time only supports either Ethernet and/or Wifi (802.11a/b/g/n) with TCP/IP on top of it...

So, is such router exist? I mean, a router that specifically hate Windows 7 to a level that it won't work if a Windows 7 host connected to it... Has anyone seen/have one?

zzz2496

 

[chev65]

According to the Windows 7 compatiblity chart there are many routers that will no longer function with Windows 7 due to changes in the network stack that are no longer supported with firmware updates. Most of the time firmware updates make them work again and those firmware updates are still coming.

And yes I've seen quite a few other types of older routers that just don't seem to work at all or have limited functionality with Windows 7. Especially when it comes to wireless 64 bit machines.

I have been able to find links to obscure and unofficially supported firmware that can make certain supposidly incompatible models compatible with Windows 7 like the D-link DIR-300 series firmware which has already saved a few old D-link routers from the trash bin. Although I believe that D-link has firmware for many of them by now.
Index of /pub/Router/DIR-300/Firmware

I really can't remember the numbers for all the routers that aren't compatible but there are pages of them.

 

[zzz2496]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

 

[CommonTater]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

Actually, I think it's more about TCP/IP v6...

Basically a router takes a packet from machine A addressed to machine B and forwards it along. The way it knows this is by the IP address imbedded in each packet (It's a dword that represents the IP's dotted quad). So it's really just a switch for LAN based work... WAN is a tiny bit more complicated when incoming packets have to be re-addressed from their WAN IP to an internal network IP but it's all still based on dotted quads.

The problem appears to be that many routers simply don't get the extra IPv6 dotted hex imbedded in the header and puke on it... They see it as a bad packet, with an incorrect header size and drop it.

Popping network analysers on my own machine here with an older (2 years) D-Link router I see packets coming out of my machine willy nilly but unless I turn off IPv6 they end up going noplace.

 

[baarod]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

DIR-300 LAN ports are 10/100. Did you mean you dropped to 10Mbs? There are several wireless routers that don't play nice with certain wireless adapters under Windows 7 when using ancillary features like Wi-Fi Protected Setup, EAP and UPnP. For example the el cheapo Rosewill RNX-EasyN400 ($25 Newegg) does not work with the Atheros wireless-n adapter in my EeePC 1000HE. Something breaks down between the authN methods sent in the AP beacon and the interpretation on the Atheros driver / Windows 7 side. Search for those kind of incompatibilities and you'll likely find routers that no longer open ports via UPnP, can't PBC setup, etc.

 

[chev65]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

Well the DIR-300 is supposed to be compatible but other D-link routers in the 300 and 600 series " I can't remember the exact numbers for the life of me" but there were a few pages of older D-link routers that aren't compatible for what ever reason. They were marked with a big red incompatible sign but I can't find them now because I forgot the numbers. It wasn't just about the IPv6 protocol, there were other problems preventing them from connecting.

Some D-link routers were brought back to life with that obscure firmware I linked to earlier, D-link wasn't officially supporting certain models anymore so the firmware was made by someone else and seems to work well. I've helped a few install that firmware and it worked 4 or 5 times but I can't remember the exact model number of those routers.

And also a few Linksys routers that weren't working too well at all with Windows 7 as I recall, mostly having to do with wireless 64 bit systems. There were also quite a few other types of routers that would not work unless the firmware was updated, I helped fix about 15 of those over the last year or so.

 

[zzz2496]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

DIR-300 LAN ports are 10/100. Did you mean you dropped to 10Mbs? There are several wireless routers that don't play nice with certain wireless adapters under Windows 7 when using ancillary features like Wi-Fi Protected Setup, EAP and UPnP. For example the el cheapo Rosewill RNX-EasyN400 ($25 Newegg) does not work with the Atheros wireless-n adapter in my EeePC 1000HE. Something breaks down between the authN methods sent in the AP beacon and the interpretation on the Atheros driver / Windows 7 side. Search for those kind of incompatibilities and you'll likely find routers that no longer open ports via UPnP, can't PBC setup, etc.

No, my internal network runs at Gigabit speed, so I need to drop the speed manually in my network interface to 100BaseT, even my Mikrotik router's interface is running at Gigabit speed...
Note: DIR-300 doesn't play nice with my NIC, so I have to manually set 100BaseT...

As for the UPnP implementation, I personally NEVER use UPnP - maybe because I'm conventional. I prefer to open ports manually, I don't want a rogue program running havoc in my network all because I set UPnP... One little switch and the whole network goes down... Scary thought :shock::shock::shock::shock:.

As for Wifi authentication, it's a problem on the AP side of the router. See el cheapo routers have several devices integrated to them. On a wired only router usually they have a 2 interface router (1st device) and a switch (2nd device). On a Wifi broadband router, there are 3 devices - a switch, an Access Point, and a 2 interface router. On a Wifi DSL broadband router, you got 4, add DSL modem which attached to the WAN side to the list. For a Wifi Cable broadband router, change the DSL modem module with a DOCSIS modem module. If you failed to connect wirelessly to a broadband modem, doesn't mean that the device is broken (as in dead), it's just the AP side doesn't play nice with your Wifi NIC. In this case, you might want to look for a compatible Wifi adapter that plays nice with the AP side of the router. The router is not compatible as a whole, just the AP part...

zzz2496
Edit: Fixed "convensional" spelling error...

 

[zzz2496]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

Actually, I think it's more about TCP/IP v6...

Basically a router takes a packet from machine A addressed to machine B and forwards it along. The way it knows this is by the IP address imbedded in each packet (It's a dword that represents the IP's dotted quad). So it's really just a switch for LAN based work... WAN is a tiny bit more complicated when incoming packets have to be re-addressed from their WAN IP to an internal network IP but it's all still based on dotted quads.

The problem appears to be that many routers simply don't get the extra IPv6 dotted hex imbedded in the header and puke on it... They see it as a bad packet, with an incorrect header size and drop it.

Popping network analysers on my own machine here with an older (2 years) D-Link router I see packets coming out of my machine willy nilly but unless I turn off IPv6 they end up going noplace.

This makes sense in an IPv6 only network, but by default Windows 7 will use both IPv4 and IPv6. So the router will read the packet's appropriate data segment for each. Unless the router have bugs in the TCP I/O implementation...
If Windows is set to IPv6 only, then the packet will be dropped because the TCP header doesn't make any sense to the router (in IPv4 router), OR the router understands IPv6, but it doesn't have any IPv6 neighbors, thus the packets are dropped...

zzz2496

 

[baarod]

I see, I know that in Windows Vista/7, Microsoft implemented the dynamic TCP packet size, and dynamic window size iirc. These new technique at times can make a stateful firewall go berserk. But to completely "self destruct"? I've searched in google - maybe my search term isn't quite right... And as for DIR-300, I got one - it's running somewhat OK, despite I need to drop my network speed to 100BaseT, and yesterday, I tested it as a gateway - it works normally...

zzz2496

DIR-300 LAN ports are 10/100. Did you mean you dropped to 10Mbs? There are several wireless routers that don't play nice with certain wireless adapters under Windows 7 when using ancillary features like Wi-Fi Protected Setup, EAP and UPnP. For example the el cheapo Rosewill RNX-EasyN400 ($25 Newegg) does not work with the Atheros wireless-n adapter in my EeePC 1000HE. Something breaks down between the authN methods sent in the AP beacon and the interpretation on the Atheros driver / Windows 7 side. Search for those kind of incompatibilities and you'll likely find routers that no longer open ports via UPnP, can't PBC setup, etc.

No, my internal network runs at Gigabit speed, so I need to drop the speed manually in my network interface to 100BaseT, even my Mikrotik router's interface is running at Gigabit speed...
Note: DIR-300 doesn't play nice with my NIC, so I have to manually set 100BaseT...

As for the UPnP implementation, I personally NEVER use UPnP - maybe because I'm convensional. I prefer to open ports manually, I don't want a rogue program running havoc in my network all because I set UPnP... One little switch and the whole network goes down... Scary thought :shock::shock::shock::shock:.

As for Wifi authentication, it's a problem on the AP side of the router. See el cheapo routers have several devices integrated to them. On a wired only router usually they have a 2 interface router (1st device) and a switch (2nd device). On a Wifi broadband router, there are 3 devices - a switch, an Access Point, and a 2 interface router. On a Wifi DSL broadband router, you got 4, add DSL modem which attached to the WAN side to the list. For a Wifi Cable broadband router, change the DSL modem module with a DOCSIS modem module. If you failed to connect wirelessly to a broadband modem, doesn't mean that the device is broken (as in dead), it's just the AP side doesn't play nice with your Wifi NIC. In this case, you might want to look for a compatible Wifi adapter that plays nice with the AP side of the router. The router is not compatible as a whole, just the AP part...

zzz2496

So needing to manually drop the auto-negotiate speed and perhaps duplex may be a compatibility issue in itself. Did you check to see if your NIC driver offered to drop GBE for you:



If so what's your NIC?

I personally always use UPnP because I'm modern and lazy and know what I'm doing with vlans. No "offense" but are you so "convensional" that spellcheck is disabled too? Don't get mad -- I've got a point and the opportunity arose at an opportune time as I was writing this. Screw it, I'm snarky.

If the whole net goes down over a UPnP glitch then I don't want you working on any network I have. It's not evil. Just architect the network correctly. Even if you don't it won't leak out. Remember you'd get frame errors before that.

No. The authN issue is on the NIC driver side. Atheros already acknowledges the bug promising a fix. The issue is that the driver's key processing offload option had a bug with padding of the EAP packet. It failed and then Windows fell back to WEP (obviously) and of course that didn't work.

It's just another auto-negotiation thing like your wired stuff we started talking about.

 

[zzz2496]

DIR-300 LAN ports are 10/100. Did you mean you dropped to 10Mbs? There are several wireless routers that don't play nice with certain wireless adapters under Windows 7 when using ancillary features like Wi-Fi Protected Setup, EAP and UPnP. For example the el cheapo Rosewill RNX-EasyN400 ($25 Newegg) does not work with the Atheros wireless-n adapter in my EeePC 1000HE. Something breaks down between the authN methods sent in the AP beacon and the interpretation on the Atheros driver / Windows 7 side. Search for those kind of incompatibilities and you'll likely find routers that no longer open ports via UPnP, can't PBC setup, etc.

No, my internal network runs at Gigabit speed, so I need to drop the speed manually in my network interface to 100BaseT, even my Mikrotik router's interface is running at Gigabit speed...
Note: DIR-300 doesn't play nice with my NIC, so I have to manually set 100BaseT...

As for the UPnP implementation, I personally NEVER use UPnP - maybe because I'm convensional. I prefer to open ports manually, I don't want a rogue program running havoc in my network all because I set UPnP... One little switch and the whole network goes down... Scary thought :shock::shock::shock::shock:.

As for Wifi authentication, it's a problem on the AP side of the router. See el cheapo routers have several devices integrated to them. On a wired only router usually they have a 2 interface router (1st device) and a switch (2nd device). On a Wifi broadband router, there are 3 devices - a switch, an Access Point, and a 2 interface router. On a Wifi DSL broadband router, you got 4, add DSL modem which attached to the WAN side to the list. For a Wifi Cable broadband router, change the DSL modem module with a DOCSIS modem module. If you failed to connect wirelessly to a broadband modem, doesn't mean that the device is broken (as in dead), it's just the AP side doesn't play nice with your Wifi NIC. In this case, you might want to look for a compatible Wifi adapter that plays nice with the AP side of the router. The router is not compatible as a whole, just the AP part...

zzz2496

So needing to manually drop the auto-negotiate speed and perhaps duplex may be a compatibility issue in itself. Did you check to see if your NIC driver offered to drop GBE for you:

View attachment 68929

If so what's your NIC?

Nvidia GBE Ethernet - it's from nForce 680i SLI

I personally always use UPnP because I'm modern and lazy and know what I'm doing with vlans. No "offense" but are you so "convensional" that spellcheck is disabled too? Don't get mad -- I've got a point and the opportunity arose at an opportune time as I was writing this. Screw it, I'm snarky.

Sorry for the spelling errors, english is not my primary language... And conventional spelled convensional in my language (weird, why didn't firefox warned me on that one...)

If the whole net goes down over a UPnP glitch then I don't want you working on any network I have. It's not evil. Just architect the network correctly. Even if you don't it won't leak out. Remember you'd get frame errors before that.

What I meant by the whole net goes down because UPnP is this: Let's imagine I have UPnP up and running, everything is OK, somehow someway I got a virus/malware infection that my AV missed, and to add to the injury, this malware has it's own "server" and is setup to interface with UPnP in my router and open a port for it to listen to it's "Master controller" - this is VERY BAD, I mean BEYOND Catastrophic... Thus I have UPnP disabled, super easy, very safe, with small to no interruptions in my day to day computing experience...
--added--
I'm not talking about the router goes down/hung/broken because UPnP, I'm talking about a malware infection that's spreading in the network just because I let it to open a port and let it contact the master server. I wouldn't want anything like that happens to any of my networks, especially at home. I don't think that's a bad computer internetwork practice... But I could be wrong...

No. The authN issue is on the NIC driver side. Atheros already acknowledges the bug promising a fix. The issue is that the driver's key processing offload option had a bug with padding of the EAP packet. It failed and then Windows fell back to WEP (obviously) and of course that didn't work.

It's just another auto-negotiation thing like your wired stuff we started talking about.

Yes, I know what you mean. What I mean is - is there a router, I mean a network device that routes one packet from your network to the next that is NOT compatible with Windows 7. A failed connection to the Access point portion of the el cheapo router is not the "incompatibility" I'm pointing at... As a router whatever that box is can still do it's job in wired mode, right? So I assume as a "router" it is indeed compatible... Unless it doesn't understand the mumbo jumbo Windows 7 is talking about, now that is incompatible in my book.

zzz2496