Hi I wrongly assumed that settings file would be a standard that could be shared between Gargoyle models.
My new Dlink DIR-825 loaded up the latest version Gargoyle nicely and then I loaded settings from a DIR-300 which corrupted the new unit so I had to go to *rescue and load up a new image there.
I guess Eric has his reasons for not making the Gargoyle settings file compliant between models but the bottom line is dont do what I did!
Report
DIR-300 works well, and is much more useful unit with Gargoyle upgrade, but was slow in operation, and the upgrade path is a tad convoluted.
The DIR-825 is great. It was no problem to load up the Gargoyle firmware (gargoyle_1.4.7-ar71xx-dir-825-b1-squashfs-sysupgrade) from D-Link firmware upgrade. EG as long as you have Rev A/B, you should be able to upgrade from within the Dlink System without needing to reset the router and load up at boot prompt (as described by others).
Words of advice DIR825
*If you need to rescue/firmware upgrade via the Reset/Boot prompt, ensure you do it in Windows using IE. Firefox in Linux does not work well with the D-Link java script, and you could find if using Linux/FF you cant upgrade.
In Windows go to Network Settings and configure default connection TCP/IP as follows: 192.168.0.100,255.255.255.0,Gateway/192.168.1.1
Dont forget to restore original network settings after the upgrade is complete.
Regards,
Alistair
Settings not compliant between routers
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:43 pm
Re: Settings not compliant between routers
First of all, its equally likely OpenWrt settings that you copied over that wrecked havoc with your router. Routers label certain things in a certain way, like the physical ports on the router & the physical radio device names. When you copy over wrong settings, things can go awry.
Second, a hardware abstraction layer or versioned preferences would do 2 things I don't think anybody would like:
• delay adding new routers because they would have to be added to a matrix of supported routers with abstraction
• impact 4MB router users unduly: it would only help users with 2 or more routers while doing virtually nothing for single-router users. And I imagine most people have single routers.
Second, a hardware abstraction layer or versioned preferences would do 2 things I don't think anybody would like:
• delay adding new routers because they would have to be added to a matrix of supported routers with abstraction
• impact 4MB router users unduly: it would only help users with 2 or more routers while doing virtually nothing for single-router users. And I imagine most people have single routers.
TP-Link WDR3600 v1.1 running 1.5.10+ L10n-English (Built 20130922 - OpenWrt r38093)
TP-Link WDR4300 running 1.5.10+ i18n-English (Built 20131010 - OpenWrt r38286)
https://github.com/BashfulBladder/gargoyle-plugins/wiki
TP-Link WDR4300 running 1.5.10+ i18n-English (Built 20131010 - OpenWrt r38286)
https://github.com/BashfulBladder/gargoyle-plugins/wiki
Re: Settings not compliant between routers
Ok understood, and makes senseRouters label certain things in a certain way, like the physical ports on the router & the physical radio device names. When you copy over wrong settings, things can go awry.
Regards,
Al.