Incompatible Routers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Waldy
  • Start date Start date
W

Waldy

Hi there,
can someone explain to me how a router can be incompatible with
Vista? Surely a router is platform independant as it is merley directing
network traffic?
 
The good example is IPv6. Some router can't take IPv6. If this is the case
for you, you may want to disable IPv6 on the Vista.

Vista How toHow to disable TCP/IPv6 · How to Disconnect Vista VPN connection
· How to disable ICS public connection ... How to disable Vista firewall
using Group Policy ...
www.howtonetworking.com/vista/vista.htm


--
Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on
http://www.HowToNetworking.com
 
Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure about uPNP, but surely IPv6 is a
network protocol and has nothing to with Microsoft or Vista?
 
Hi
Routers are Not platform independent.
They are actually small computers (usually comparable to P-II) with OS
running embedded in the firmware and very small memory.
Depending on how the OS and the managing software were written Routers can
be incompatible with other OS' or codes.
Jack (MVP-Networking).
 
Jack (MVP-Networking). said:
Hi
Routers are Not platform independent.
They are actually small computers (usually comparable to P-II) with OS
running embedded in the firmware and very small memory.
Depending on how the OS and the managing software were written Routers can
be incompatible with other OS' or codes.
Jack (MVP-Networking).
Click to expand...

Ahh...NO! Routers architecturally are independent from the end systems.
There may be new technology that comes about (such as IPv6 and QoS features)
that needs to be accommodated but they are definitely not tied to an
operating system. This independence is mandatory to maintain the stability
of a network.
 
Hi
Are you referring to Real Routers or to the so called Cable/DSL Routers?
I was referring to the Entry Level Cable/DSL (so called ) Routers.
Jack (MVP-Networking).
 
Jack (MVP-Networking). said:
Hi
Are you referring to Real Routers or to the so called Cable/DSL Routers?
I was referring to the Entry Level Cable/DSL (so called ) Routers.
Jack (MVP-Networking).
Click to expand...

Yes...that's a good question. I was talking about a pure router,
architecturally. Your point is well taken and the taxonomy in the industry
is getting muddied up. As we integrate various architectural component into
one box, we don't know what to call it anymore. No one has taken the time
to give it a name. It's always unclear to me when people talking about a
router, and they are really talking about the modem function in the box,
what are they saying? And when the box contains a router, modem and
wireless access point...what is it. We haven't invented a name for it yet.
So, yes, I was talking about a router as a functional component.
 
That KB article is pretty good.

To be specific, though, a router can be deemed incompatible with Vista if it
has problems with ECN, CTCP, Recieve Window Auto Tuning, Recieve-Side Scaling
State, UPnP, etc.

In general, if you turn off all of the TCP/IP stacks special things, such as
the features mentioned above, you will not have any incompatibilities. It's
primarily when routers are unable to handle the features mentioned above that
they are not compatible, and you may get anything from dropped connections,
to poor performance, to crashing routers (entering reboot loops, etc).

The routers can generally be made compatible with a firmware update, if the
manufacturer cares enough.
 
In general, as long as the OS is implementing its TCP/IP stack properly, a
router should be compatible with every OS.

Vista implements its TCP/IP stack properly, but it uses features that are
not widely used.

ECN, for example, has been known to throw routers into reboot loops. That
is why it is disabled by default in Vista. It was introduced, in an enabled
state, to the Linux kernel some time ago, and users encounted a lot of
incompatible routers that just did not know how to deal with ECN (which forms
packets slightly differently, ie, adding data to the header. It's still a
proper packet, just using some header data that is otherwise unused).
 
Back
Top