Jul 15, 2014 Where can i get the lateWhere can i get the latest firmware update for my Linksys WAG200G Router? Currently i have v. 1.01.05 st firm Regards Lethin. ![]() Thechief wrote:3. Changing your router's firmware from Linksys/Openwag200 to RouterTech is a one-way process. You would thereafter only be able to return to the Linksys/Openwag200 firmware if ALL of the following conditions are satisfied: • You have functional JTAG pins on the router, and a functional JTAG cable • You have a good Linksys/Openwag200 'wholeimage' firmware (all 4mb of it) • You have 20 hours to spare, to flash the 'wholeimage' firmware via JTAG If you are lacking ANY of these, then you are taking a VERY BIG RISK if you proceed. If it all goes wrong (and it can), then do not complain. If you complain, no-one will be listening. After Routertech, you dont have to JTAG the router, if you want to try OpenWAG200. On PSPboot prompt: (you should also be able to setenv on telnet/SSH) setenv mtd5 0x90000000,0x90400000 Download wholeflash.bin to your router's /var directory. Disconnect internet and execute: dd if=wholeflash.bin of=/dev/mtdblock/5 wait some minutes, when it completes power off/on the router upgrade to latest version of OpenWAG200/Linksys using WebGUI Your suggestion redefines MTD5 as a larger partition you are copying the old firmware back into this partition. Based on the original environment settings from linksys/openwag, the 'new' mtd5 your suggesting is equal to the total of mtd2 to mtd4 in the linksys/openwag environment parameters with mtd5 being 0x903a0000 to 903e0000, overwriting the old mtd5 These redefined MTD addresses don't match the backup, will reflashing the firmware redefine the correct values which afaik are supposed to remain static within the same firmware bases? I believe the original poster withdrew (deleted) the article after I highlighted some potential issues with the process that he described. I thereafter also removed my response, which looked really out of place when what it was responding to was no longer there! Let's just say that, at best, the 'dd' command will not work, as the mtd5 partition so created will not be writeable (in any case, a reboot will be required for the system to recognise it). At worst, you will overwrite the bootloader, since the mtd5 so created overlaps with the current mtd2 and mtd3 (the only writeable parts) - and, in that case, if the wholeflash.bin does not start with a bootloader, an almighty brick will follow - requiring JTAG to restore the bootloader. Basically, the described process seems very risky indeed. Edit: it seems that the original post is still there. Kngtrider wrote:Chip manufacturers increased their clockspeeds after they went to native adsl2 (out of the box ) they again later did the same when they started to add software features such as USB file/print/samba or DLNA, bandwidth monitoring. Many 125MHz models were sold before the ADSL2 firmware and drivers was even ready. Even with the same firmware/drivers the newer hardware does sync better but that may due to modem generational improvements rather than overall speed. Im pretty sure i saw very high cpu utilisations on older hardware under normal use when things got busy but that may be down to the software running on it.I guess it depends on what they are running, and whether the software is optimised. But I have tried all sorts of things even on 125mhz, and, apart from the bootup process, hardly anything tasks the cpu. The modem part is improving all the time, and I think this is what is responsible for better DSL performance on more recent hardware. Netfabb key os x yosemite. Thechief wrote:It is disabled by default. It would only be enabled if you did so manually. By the way, how did you ascertain that it is enabled? Yes the pages indicate it is off by default I tested via my WAN IP, via a domain name which resolves to my WAN IP and by asking another person on anther internet connection to try to connect to my connection. Port 22 and 80 are running on the WAN IP I never toggled remote ssh or remote web ON either in the Linksys firmware or when I put RT on. I did subsequent to my post toggle it on/off to see if it would turn off and it didnt.That is news to me. Let's just say that I can't reproduce that problem. And it shouldn't happen, unless you are trying to access your WAN IP from inside your network, in which case you will run into the 'local nat' problem (i.e., you will only get to the router). Kngtrider wrote:IMO end users dont need flashing PPP/DSL LEDs or even dual colour. On/Off is more than sufficent since these LEDs will signfify if a successful internet connection has been established compared to the old days of dialup where the lights signfied serial port/low level signals. As long as the ethernet lights flash for their correct ports - good switch support thats all I am concerned about. If you think you have the same setup working on most hardware, dont touch it.The led.wag200g.conf was hand-crafted for the wag200g, and it wasn't easy work, and, I for one am happy with how far we've been able to get it. So, no more changes!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |