Why is everyone so lazy? If you just take the minute thirty to watch the video you would know I am trying to see where my tftp flash is going wrong. I dont care about bricking.
Why is everyone so lazy? If you just take the minute thirty to watch the video you would know I am trying to see where my tftp flash is going wrong. I dont care about bricking.
Your video is irrelevant, there is not one single dd-wrt build that will be accepted by a v4.
Not in the gui, not by tftp.
That is your shear luck, otherwise you would have a brick now.
Not maybe - for sure 100%.
Now stop being a fool. _________________ Kernel panic: Aiee, killing interrupt handler!
Don't mean to bring this back from the dead for over a month. But is there any idea if we will ever support this version? I recently bought one myself.
Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 18:48 Post subject: Re the WNR2000 v4
Can we get something more than "it doesn't work"... is there a specific reason? Do we have a reason to hope, or is it never gonna happen?
I've generally been happy with the DD-WRT community, but this thread... left me a little less than thrilled. I'm fine with "it ain't in the cards", but I'd like to know why...
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:01 Post subject: have we any hope?
Hi community, as I've already written on an other thread i've bought this wnr2000V4 by mistake. All I want to know is if there is any possibility to have a firmware for this item. That's all.
99.9% won't happen. The 0.1% being to cover the rare situation where someone has a change of heart. The WNR2000v3 was barely supported, the v4 will likely not even be looked at. Much like its v3 counterpart it has low end hardware e.g. small flash, low RAM. It is certainly not a good candidate for DD-WRT, which means developers will not waste their resources on such devices. _________________ James
Main router:
Netgear R7000 overclocked to 1.2GHz - DD-WRT v3.0-r35965M kongac
IPv6 6in4 (HE.net), OpenVPN (with PBR and split tunnelling), Entware, dnsmasq with ipset
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 21:11 Post subject: Re the WNR2000 v4
Ok, I can live with that... for a Netgear, I've actually been relatively happy with the stock firmware and this WAP has been the one I've been slowest to come looking for an alternative to... I think I did see someone trying out a boot loader with one of the other wrt projects, so I may check that out, but, over all, it works for me now, so I may just coast. If it is primarily due to memory, I can be choosey about what I install...
It uses an Atheros AR9341 and has 4M flash, 32M RAM. This seems very similar to the DIR-615 which *is* supported. So is there something else about this hardware that makes it difficult to work with?
telnet 192.168.128.1
Trying 192.168.128.1...
Connected to 192.168.128.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
=== IMPORTANT ============================
Use 'passwd' to set your login password
this will disable telnet and enable SSH
------------------------------------------
BusyBox v1.4.2 (2013-05-21 15:23:07 CST) Built-in shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
_______ ________ __
| |.-----.-----.-----.| | | |.----.| |_
| - || _ | -__| || | | || _|| _|
|_______|| __|_____|__|__||________||__| |____|
|__| W I R E L E S S F R E E D O M
KAMIKAZE (bleeding edge, r18571) ------------------
* 10 oz Vodka Shake well with ice and strain
* 10 oz Triple sec mixture into 10 shot glasses.
* 10 oz lime juice Salute!
---------------------------------------------------
root@WNR2000v4:/#
I now have something to try tomorrow... and I'm losing confidence in the reason stated before... my first DD-WRT experience was with a router with 4 MB of flash and 8MB of RAM... the WNR2000v4 reportedly has 4 and 32, well within specs for at least a minimal install... if you don't want to support it, just say so.
Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:01 Post subject: Re: WNR2000v4 running OpenWRT?
thanks for that - just tried it on my latest acquisition... (WNR2000v4)
wanted to use it to act as a wifi bridge... but this requires WPA to be disabled - was hoping to install DDWRT or openwrt - but if it is already running openwrt - does that mean I can program it from the command line and get the functionality I need?
telnet 192.168.128.1
Trying 192.168.128.1...
Connected to 192.168.128.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
=== IMPORTANT ============================
Use 'passwd' to set your login password
this will disable telnet and enable SSH
------------------------------------------
BusyBox v1.4.2 (2013-05-21 15:23:07 CST) Built-in shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
_______ ________ __
| |.-----.-----.-----.| | | |.----.| |_
| - || _ | -__| || | | || _|| _|
|_______|| __|_____|__|__||________||__| |____|
|__| W I R E L E S S F R E E D O M
KAMIKAZE (bleeding edge, r18571) ------------------
* 10 oz Vodka Shake well with ice and strain
* 10 oz Triple sec mixture into 10 shot glasses.
* 10 oz lime juice Salute!
---------------------------------------------------
root@WNR2000v4:/#
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 7401 Location: Little Rock
Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 15:31 Post subject:
asmagill wrote:
I now have something to try tomorrow... and I'm losing confidence in the reason stated before... my first DD-WRT experience was with a router with 4 MB of flash and 8MB of RAM... the WNR2000v4 reportedly has 4 and 32, well within specs for at least a minimal install... if you don't want to support it, just say so.
Still... OpenWRT gets a visit soon.
--
A-Ron
Visit openwrt and use it, it surely is your choice to do so, but trolling comments such as what you keep displaying here won't get the unit supported any sooner.
Advice to you: don't invest in 'vaporware' type wl routers if you intend on running a specific firmware on it. Invest in supported units only, not units that 'may get support'.
And i wouldn't really expect this unit to get supported due to its flash restraints of being a netgear unit, netgear has a tendency to store board data in the flash ram, so you don't ever get the full space, and with this having 4MB of flash to begin with, that's already pretty tight, min requirements for dd-wrt on an atheros unit is 4MB of flash - with 4MB being the full 4megs, not some of it.. so no, i wouldn't expect the devs here to go out of their way to port for this unit, and definitely not happen if they don't get one of these units on their desk to work with.