RV220W problem

Similar Questions

• VPN IPSEC RV220w problem

  Hello, I hope someone can help with my problem.

  I have a RV220w in the office, I set it for ipsec vpn connections. Behind the router, there is a NAS for file storage.

  My setup as follows:

  RV220w 192.168.1.1 with dyndns, configured for ipsec vpn with default Client strategies.

  Remote location (my laptop) local IP: 192.168.3.2

  Remote site VPN IP (given by ShrewVPN): 192.168.30.5

  I managed to connect to the router at home with ShrewVPN and I can ping each client connected to RV220w.

  The problem is that I can't connect to the web interface of the router or the NAS web interface or any other web page intranet (the browser gives no error, but continues to load without displaying the web page). Even if I can access the web pages of my laptop.

  In addition, in windows Explorer when I log into the NAS, although I can go through the files, I can't copy the files from my laptop on the NAS and vice versa, I still get timeout error (I checked the permissions on the NAS and also I managed to copy a txt file small 1 KB) (, but no luck with large files).

  I also tried with QuickVPN client, but I got the same results.

  When I connect with pptp windows everything works like a charm.

  My laptop has windows 7 64 bit.

  If you need other configuration details, please advice.

  Thank you

  Hi Spyros, one of the differences between IPsec and PPTP is that IPsec requires the client that connects to use another LAN IP address, when you connect. Unlike PPTP, it is assigned by the router.

  Another difference is that the requirement of bandwidth is much higher for IPsec connections.

  I don't think it's a problem of IP subnet as you are able view readers to all least, then it means that the unit can accept connections from different subnets. But it is possible, it may be a problem of download speed. QVPN needs Mbit upload environ.5 to have an activity and a reliable and quality connection.

  Another problem may be a matter of downtime with IPsec encryption. The RV220W has a non routable WAN address. This suggests to me that you have another router upstream. Time to answer through the IPsec tunnel can be volatile because of the translation through multiple jumps.

  -Tom
  Please mark replied messages useful

• Cisco RV220W IPSec VPN problem Local configuration for any config mode

  Dear all,

  I need help, I am currently evaluating RV220W for VPN usage but I'm stuck with the config somehow, it seems that there is a problem with the Mode-Config?

  What needs to be changed or where is my fault?

  I have installed IPSec according to the RV220W Administrator's Guide. Client's Mac with Mac Cisco IPSec VPN, I also tried NCP Secure Client.

  I have 3 other sites where the config on my Mac works fine, but the Cisco VPN router is not.

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: remote for found identifier "remote.com" configuration

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: application received for the negotiation of the new phase 1: x.x.x.x [500]<=>2.206.0.67 [53056]

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: early aggressive mode.

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received Vendor ID: RFC 3947

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received unknown Vendor ID

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received Vendor ID: draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received Vendor ID: draft-ietf-ipsra-isakmp-xauth-06.txt

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received Vendor ID: CISCO - UNITY

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: received Vendor ID: DPD

  2013-03-07 01:55:49: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: for 2.206.0.67 [53056], version selected NAT - T: RFC 39472013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: floating ports NAT - t with peer 2.206.0.67 [52149]

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: NAT - D payload is x.x.x.x [4500]

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: NAT - D payload does not match for 2.206.0.67 [52149]

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: NAT detected: Peer is behind a NAT device

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: request sending Xauth for 2.206.0.67 [52149]

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: ISAKMP Security Association established for x.x.x.x [4500] - 2.206.0.67 [52149] with spi: 1369a43b6dda8a7d:fd874108e09e207e

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: type of the attribute "ISAKMP_CFG_REPLY" from 2.206.0.67 [52149]

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: connection for the user "Testuser".

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: type of the attribute "ISAKMP_CFG_REQUEST" from 2.206.0.67 [52149]

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] WARNING: ignored attribute 5

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] WARNING: attribute ignored 28678

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] ERROR: local configuration for 2.206.0.67 [52149] has no config mode

  2013-03-07 01:55:50: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] WARNING: attribute ignored 28683

  2013-03-07 01:56:07: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: purged-with proto_id = ISAKMP and spi = 1369a43b6dda8a7d:fd874108e09e207e ISAKMP Security Association.

  2013-03-07 01:56:08: [CiscoFirewall] [IKE] INFO: ISAKMP Security Association deleted for x.x.x.x [4500] - 2.206.0.67 [52149] with spi: 1369a43b6dda8a7d:fd874108e09e207e

  Hi Mike, the built-in client for MAC does not work with the RV220W. The reason is, the MAC IPSec client is the same as the Cisco VPN 5.x client.

  The reason that this is important is that the 5.x client work that on certain small business products include the SRP500 and SA500 series.

  I would recommend that you search by using a client VPN as Greenbow or IPSecuritas.

  -Tom
  Please mark replied messages useful

• RV220W second problem of DHCP vlan

  Hi all

  I have a router Cisco RV220W (the 1.0.4.17 firmware version).

  I would like to have two separate networks with the following characteristics:

  Netwrork1: network address range is 192.168.0.1 - 254. All devices should be able to reach eachother within this network and connect you to the internet via Wifi or LAN. This network, I was also able to reach the device on the router management page. Also the devices should get the throgh of DHCP ip addresses.

  Network2: network address range is 192.168.5.1 - 254. All devices within this network should not be able to reach devices in Network1. All devices on this network should reach internet through Wifi only. Device management page should not be available on this network.

  I have configured the router as described in the attached screenshots, but the problem is that in Network2, devices get IPs of the range 192.168.0.1 - 254 and not from 192.168.5.1 beach - 254. Also, there is no internet on these either.

  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Mate, honestly I don't think that there is an explanation here. It doesn't seem to work as it should. I personally default from Router 2 ssid, 2 VLANs and test from there before you make additional configurations.

  -Tom
  Please mark replied messages useful

• RV220W. Problems LAN WLAN <>-

  I recently bougt garage this router for his VLAN and a high flow. It replaced a standard Linksys DIR-655

  But now I am having problems connecting my Samsung Galaxy2 (Android 4.0.3) phone to my computer. Phone is connected to the WiFi and the computer is connected to the wired LAN.

  When you start Kies on my phone (it is a Web server application) it tells me to connect to http://192.168.1.202:8080 / on my computer. It's the correct IP address for the phone (I booked it on the router) and the firewall is DISABLED in windows 7.  But there is no response with firefox or IE8.   I haven't changed anything on the computer or on the phone because I replaced the router, so the problem must somehow be connected to the router.

  Phone and computer are connected to the internet OK.  I can even remotely control the computer from the phone using the VNC app on the phone! If the network is working. The problem is only related to the communication with the Kies application.

  Anyone who might know what is happening?

  Armand,

  Unfortunately if the network works then there is nothing more that can be done with a view to support Cisco HWC. However, I found a link that I think can help. Please keep in mind that any changes made as a result of the information contained in this post will be made at your own free will.

  http://androidforums.com/Samsung-Galaxy-S2-international/359070-trouble-Kies-air.html

  Hope this helps

  Blake Wright

  HWC Cisco network engineer

• Cisco RV220W w Win Server R2 Essentials 2012: connection anywhere access

  Hello

  I recently updated a network six computers with Windows Server 2012 Essentials R2.  The problem I have is that I am unable to access anywhere to put in place correctly, with the most common being of error messages: 1) anywhere access to your server is blocked & 2) there may be more than one router on your network (which does not exist).  I have UPnP active (although have hesitated to do) & port 80 & 443 is forwarded to the IP address of servers. The previous server used before the upgrade was Windows Sever 2012 Essentials and after of many trials & errors had access Anywhere works fine for our needs for about two years.  The router that has not changed, nor have the settings because it did not work properly is a Cisco RV220W.  Any help or any settings on the router to check/change would be greatly appreciated, since I'm pretty much of ideas & need to get remote access to the top & running for this case.

  Thank you

  Paul

  Hello

  Before starting my answer, I want to let you know that I have no experience whatsoever with the anywhere access system. I have never set up or used. That being said, I did a little research and found that, generally, just redirect ports 80 and 443 to the server and also to enable uPnP on the router so that the other ports required get configured manually.

  According to the information I have found, there are several other ports that must be opened via uPnP and maybe that's the part that doesn't work.

  Here is the document that I found:

  http://social.technet.Microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/14153.Windows...

  I mention that, in addition to opening ports 80 and 443, you also need the 25. 1723, 987, and 3389.

  Here are my recommendations:

  1. check the uPnP on the Rv220W table to see if other ports are open on the server. To do this, go to Administration - settings - Discovery - Discovery UPnP, make sure that it is enabled and then checked the table to see if other ports seem to be open on the server.

  2-if they are not, and then open manually. To do this, go to the firewall - access rulesand add rules for all necessary ports.

  I hope that was helpful.

• VLAN-RV220W - help needed

  Hello

  I'm having a problem with a new vlan on this router. The router uses the default firmware 1.0.0.26 because I can't use 1.0.1.0 because we have a DSL connection that requires PPPoE.

  Vlan1 is for our work and our SBS PC which acts also as the DHCP server. The router is configured with a static address and has disabled DHCP.

  VLAN5 is a group of PC, who cannot have access to the Internet and nothing else on the network. I made a few screenshots of the parameters.

  

  

  When I connect a PC port 4, a valid IP address is not received from the DHCP configured for VLAN5, instead the PC receives an address IP of SBS located on VLAN1, it also shows that I am connected to the local domain on VLAN1. Me missing something, is there something else that needs parameters. I can't understand why I don't get a 192.168.5.0 address.

  My VLAN10 secure wireless works very well and receives the correct IP address.

  Any help would be appreciated.

  Michael.

  Michael,

  Well have gone through your messages and also set up a similar configuration in our laboratory. Note that I had trouble; no problem with the RV220W, but rather the switch was close one of the ports connected to RV220W. So I went to the SG - 302 switch and disabled STP on this port and everything started to work very well. So, it is probably similar in your case too. Also if the netgear is a fully managed switch, why don't you just truck two virtual networks on the same port. This will release two ports in your network. you mentioned that you receive an ip address of the vlan 1 when you were connected to the vlan 10, even with your configuration file, I haven't lived something like this. On the wireless side you can reconnect each SSID and the test. Tests you want to make sure that you do an ipconfig/release () and (ipconfig / renew) your IP stack could keep your permeable connected network settings.

  Thank you

  Jason Bryant

  Support Cisco engineer

  .:|:.:|:.

• RV220W v RV320 (best router to buy? Duplicate port?)

  Hey Cisco-ers,

  Planning on buying a new business Router Firewall VPN in the next 24 hours and have a few questions that I would be grateful if someone could respond.

  1. I guess the most recent series of Cisco SMB router is the RV series with the rest having been that would be end of life?

  2. the more feature-rich and more powerful are the RV220W and the RV320?

  3. in addition to the integrated WiFi AP into the RV220W and the dual WAN in the RV320 there are all the other differences? More features in one over the other? I see that the RV320 might have a higher flow rate?

  4. the RV220W does not support port mirroring / SPAN only packet capture 1 MB of traffic (which, by today's standards, is not enough to get a specific look at the incoming/outgoing connections) but the RV320 not?

  5 port mirroring is a big problem for me (to identify on my network bandwidth hungry devices!) so is it possible that put as a feature request for the RV220W? or is there a technical limitation? Is the physical material within a not as good RV220V?

  Otherwise unless someone says something different it looks like the RV320 is the best router (rich in features and performance) you make less than £500? Please correct me if not.

  Thanks for your time.

  Hi Matthew,

  OK, here go us:

  1. I guess the most recent series of Cisco SMB router is the RV series with the rest having been that would be end of life? I don't put any RV series for pasture (EoL) recently.

  2. the more feature-rich and more powerful are the RV220W and the RV320? The RV320 and the RV325 were recently launched. The RV220W has been on the market for some time - so it is natural that the newer models have more features. We take our experiences and suggestions from you all and incorporate them into future models.

  3. in addition to the integrated WiFi AP into the RV220W and the dual WAN in the RV320 there are all the other differences? More features in one over the other? I see that the RV320 might have a higher flow rate? The RV320 and the RV325 have SSL VPN, USB broadband with failover, double WAN, etc. They are better suited for a several device deployment vs. an all-in-one/network in a box...

  4. the RV220W does not support port mirroring / SPAN only packet capture 1 MB of traffic (which, by today's standards, is not enough to get a specific look at the incoming/outgoing connections) but the RV320 not? Back to the above statement. -We work effectively on the next gen RV220W - which will include 802.11 AC.

  5 port mirroring is a big problem for me (to identify on my network bandwidth hungry devices!) so is it possible that put as a feature request for the RV220W? or is there a technical limitation?  Is the physical material within a not as good RV220V? We would prob not right at the request of feature on this particular model of Michael.

  Thank you for being a member of this community.

  Marc

• RV220W restart at irregular intervals

  Hello

  In recent weeks, our RV220W router knows random reboots throughout the day, causing a network outage for our local network for the few minutes it takes to make the router to start up again. We have seen at least restart 5 today only (and the time is currently just over 13:00).

  I have a problem, find the pattern of these reboots in the router logs, although I find these two lines, repeating in the errors :

  Mon Jan 28 13:20:52 2013(GMT+0100) [rv220w][System][EVTDSPTCH] umiIoctl (18, UMI_CMD_DB_UPDATE(4)) failed. table=dot11STA row=11
  Mon Jan 28 13:20:52 2013(GMT+0100) [rv220w][System][PLATFORM] /pfrm2.0/bin/bwLimitConfig /tmp/system.db 18 dot11STA 11 failed. status=-1
  

  I don't know why these messages pop up, given that we do not use the module the router bandwidth limiter (granted, we use the QoS profiles to ensure our own LAN is a priority on the guest VLAN). I'm also not sure if this is related to the router restarts.

  I also find the next line repeated in the warning log:

  Mon Jan 28 12:50:50 2013(GMT+0100) [rv220w][Kernel][KERNEL] ERROR:endChantRecv: protocol PNAC returned !OK

  The router is running on the 1.0.4.17 firmware version (last official release), given that we needed support for connections of the Hairpin (that I discovered in Public IP used internally on RV220W). I've seen the suggestion of downgrading to a previous version of firmware in RV220W random restarts, which may be solved for the poster in this thread, but as we really support crossed, I don't know what version of firmware is safe enough to downgrade, if necessary.

  Any suggestions for a solution or what else to look for?

  Hi Kim, I already check your configuration, I had no problem with the device, but I could recommend you who try to simply configure the necessary settings, it resembles a small surcharge, you can also get an another RV220 and work with both devices, in this way, you're going to get better performance. Please let me know know progress when you place your firmware. I apologize for the inconvenience

  I hope you find this answer useful,

  "* Please mark the issue as response or write it down so others can benefit from.

  Greetings,

  Johnnatan Rodriguez Miranda.

  Support of Cisco network engineer.

• RV220W random reboots

  Hello

  I have a problem with my RV220W.

  It will randomly restart every day and I received the following message in the log: [rv220w] [System] [FIREWALL] fwPPTPGenericRules.c: inet_aton failed

  I saw an internet I can ask cisco for the Beta firmware 1.0.4.6 that solve the problems (Iactually use 1.0.4.17). What is the solution? How can I get the beta firmware?

  Thank you!

  downgrade firmware v.1.0.3.5 should be OK. You can try. Good luck

• Public IP address used internally on RV220W

  Hello

  I've finally set up our RV220W to serve our network of offices, using the following environment:

  WAN is set for a public IP (static configuration), while internal network consists of two VLANS.

  VLAN 1 is connected to the cable network and a SSID wireless, where DHCP is served by our server Windows SBS (192.168.15.x), and this VLAN is used only for our own office. VLAN 2 is connected to a second SSID wireless, where DHCP is served by the RV220W himself (192.168.17.x) and this VLAN is used for guests and visitors to our office.

  On a regular basis, we need to use a mobile device to access a test page of a development server on VLAN 1, and the router is configured to redirect the connections on a specific port on the public IP address to our development server.

  For VLAN 1, I solved this by substituting the DNS for the host name of this test page to use the local IP address of the development server.

  However, for VLAN 2, there is no way to access this test page.

  Is there a way I can configure the router to redirect connections, either replace the internal DNS for the test on the development server page is also accessible from 2 VLAN (network comments/visitor)?

  Thanks for any help.

  Hi Kim, what firmware version are you using? You can load the last

  http://www.Cisco.com/Cisco/software/release.html?mdfid=283118607&flowid=&softwareid=282487380&OS=null&release=1.0.4.17&relind=null&rellifecycle=null&RelType=null

  On older versions, there are a few problems Hairpin, but most have been resolved on the latest 2 releases.

  -Tom
  Please evaluate the useful messages

• RV220W transfer of a range of ports

  How can we transfer a port range?

  Suppose that I have defined the following service:

  Service: TEST

  Port type: UDP

  From port: 5060

  End port: 5070

  and I want to send to a specific IP address. Then, if I create a new port forwarding rule for this service he asked me to specify a unique port number to be used internally as:

  Action: Always allow the

  Service: TEST

  Source IP: no

  Destination IP: 10.0.0.100

  Internal port:?

  I want to forward all ports 5060 to 5070 5060 to 5070 internal range.

  How can I do?

  I have the same problem with the duty to convey a range of ports to a single ip address. At the moment I can't put the rv220w in the network to test because we are in the middle of the day and I can't take the network down.

  Just a warning:

  * This has not been tested in an active network *.

  I've done the following:

  Go to the firewall.

  Access rules

  Add the new rule:

  Type of connection: incoming (wan (internet) > LAN (local area network))

  Action: Always allow the

  Service: 'TEST '.

  Source IP: no

  Send to the Server Local (DNAT IP): 10.0.0.100

  Press on save and it "appears" to work. Yet once I have not tested myself so just be careful because I don't know if it works correctly now. When I am able to put the router of the network and test this I will follow.

• RV220W has suddenly lost connectivity QuickVPN

  RV220W worked well with QuickVPN, but suddenly lost this ability and cannot connect from any Windows machine (Xp, Win7 32/64 bits)

  QuickVPN is worm. 1.4.2.1

  Cisco RV220W firmware is 1.0.4.17 worm.

  Error of the client on Windows XP in the Log.txt:

  [STATUS] OS version: Windows XP

  [STATUS] The Windows Firewall is DISABLED

  [STATUS] A detected with network interface IP 10.1.1.165

  [STATUS] Connection...

  [DEBUG] Enter the address of the server = x.x.x.x VPN

  [STATUS] Connecting to a remote gateway with IP address: x.x.x.x

  [WARNING] Remote gateway has not been achieved

  [WARNING] Unable to connect.

  [STATUS] Gateway remotely concluded with https...

  [WARNING] Remote gateway has not been achieved

  [WARNING] Unable to connect.

  VPNServer.conf saved on the client but has no details of IP gateway

  Cisco router log shows: Faild [IKE] load configuration

  What has been done on the client:

  Firewall off the coast

  IPSec service is running

  antivirus off

  netsh int ip reset

  allow incoming ports on router 1723,500,4500,443,60443 home

  IP address of the client even go DMZ

  delete other than QuickVPN VPN software

  HTTPS.pem certificate exported from the router and put in the client directory

  What makes hs on Cisco RV220W router:

  Networking > WAN > IPv4 WAN: MTU is by default (it is now 'auto' in RV220W)

  Firewall > access rules: no rule to redirect to 443,60443,500,4500

  Firewall > prevention of attacks (both 'active' and 'disabled' were considered):

  • Meet Ping on WAN - active
  • Stealth mode - off
  • Flood - disabled
  • Block UDP flood - disabled
  • Block anonymous ICMP - disabled
  • Block fragmented packets - disabled
  • Block multicast packets - disabled

  VPN > IPsec > VPN users: QuickVPN user created

  VPN > VPN Passthrough: ipsec, pptp, l2tp active ("disabled" for pptp also tried)

  Administration > remote management on port 60443 - activated

  Please use our forum.

  Alexey Hi, my name is Johnnatan and I'm part of the community of support to small businesses. In order to solve your problem, I created a document to help you. When you configure a remote VPN connection, there are some steps that are lost on the path. Here you can see these steps. Please read it carefully and if you have any questions or doubts please let me know and I´ll help you.

  https://supportforums.Cisco.com/docs/doc-29399

  I hope you find this answer useful,

  "* Please mark the issue as response or write it down so others can benefit from.

  Greetings,

  Johnnatan Rodriguez Miranda.

  Support of Cisco network engineer.

• Cisco ISR 861W, RV220W or WRVS4400N

  Hi guys,.

  I am looking for a system of professional router for small businesses.

  So I looked all over the internet on solutions and, finally, one of the following it will be.

  but I don't know which.

  1.) WRVS4400N

  The first router I wanted to buy, but it is difficult to obtain in Germany. This product also seems to be available since 2008 or before, it's so maybe at the end of its life cycle.

  RV220W 2).

  Seems to be the most recent / 4400N product tracking.

  SRI 861W 3).

  Also seems to be an old product, with the best performance of flow in all firewalls and in-depth packages / VPN belongs to the RV220W.

  The only thing I worry about are the four Fastethernet Ports.

  Is my photo on these three products allright?

  The application will be a small office with 10 employees. 15 to 20 PCs running. 50% connected via a WLAN, 50% connected via a LAN cable.

  2 Networkprinters, 1 file server. All connected with 16MBit ADSL line to the internet. At present, there is no need to have the VPN connection to our internal network, but it will be a necessity in the future (5-10 PCs).

  At the moment our used SOHO solution sometimes has problems with traffic and the 10 permanent Tunnels VPN to another network of the company, resulting in a reboot of this small router.

  So what solution will be the best for this scenario?

  Thank you

  Concerning

  Philipp

  Hi Phillipp, the RV220W sounds like it should be a good match for you. However, if you are looking for a much more mature product then the 861 would be better. However, the 861, to my knowledge only supports 5 IPSEC tunnels. Thus, the RV220W based on the products listed here, is the only router able to achieve your goal of 10 tunnels.

  -Tom
  Please mark replied messages useful

• PPTP RV220W Firmware 1.0.4.17 NEED HELP!

  Hello

  I tried for a long time to set up the VPN pptp on the RV220w, but ultimately I do not succeed.

  I think my problem is the configuration of VLANs for the PPTP Protocol, cause in the PPTP configuration, I can't put the same subnet as the LAN. If the pptp connection is working, but I don't have access to one of my Lan Server? I have activate inter vlan routing in belonging to a vlan by default configuration, but will not change anything. I am completely lost and don't know what to do next. It is a simple config but not able to make it work. Can whant I do then?

  Thanks for your help!

  I noticed the same thing with my rv220w

  Example:

  Vlan1 is 192.168.1.0

  Vlan2 is 192.168.2.0

  When I put the scoop pptp range 192.168.2.0 I can save the setting.

  I then create a Vlan2 and together 192.168.2.0 and enable inter vlan routing.

  I can connect to the outside pptp server, but I cannot ping anything on my other networks.

  If I go back now to the im unable to save all the settings of parameters of pptp server. Get an error that the pptp server can not be on the 192.168.2.0 Vlan2 range. A check is performed if the new ip range is used in any vlan. If not he will be allowed to register. But after associating the pptp scoop vlan, that you can't go back and make changes to the pptp server from now there is a vlan in this range, although ofc, is that I wanted her to be lol...

  Here's how I cheated checking bultin and does the job.

  Since I want the pptp server on my 192.168.1.0 network, but cannot save the changes when you perform the configuration contained in the pptp server option I did the following.

  Change my vlan1 or normal network range if you want 192.168.100.0 reboot router and you log in again.

  GoTo now the server pptp and change the range of 192.168.1.0 and save settings. reboot the router.

  Return to the network settings, then set it to normal range ip in 192.168.1.0. Now, you will most likely lose the network connection to the router. Set a fixed ip address on your pc for 192.168.1.0 range. Connect you on your router and it reboot, or draw power, a reboot is required.

  When he comes back up you can connect to your pptp server located in the 192.168.1.0 range. Note that you will not be able to make any changes after the server pptp since the fw will take stock and complain that you need to change the beach again and you have to redo all the steps all over again.

  I hope they will fix this bugg in future firmware. I noticed many more saw it and not been able to solve.

  Hope that this temporary fix will help you.

  BR