Help: RV325 doesn't talk to Roku Premiere +

[HSA]

Newbie to the forum here.

My home network is based on a Cisco RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Router with the last firmware version: v1.3.2.02 (2016-09-23, 15:17:06). The network consists of various devices + dual WAN ISPs (in balanced mode) + 2 Ubiquiti APs (802.11ac).

I can not connect a newly acquired Roku Premiere+ device (a video streamer) to my network. This device can be connected either via Ethernet or via Wi-Fi. Neither works. I think that the device is seen by the router but it never gets a DHCP address. (In WiFi mode I can see the device via the Ubiquity software utility) The same device connects without problems to a different router, and a different Roku device (an older generation, Roku 2 XS) connects without any problem to the RV325.

I tried to assign an address via MAC binding but it didn't help.

I have a vague suspicion that is related to this listed Cisco bug "No DHCP offer when host name includes illegal character (CSCva92006)" because the "Premiere +" hostname but this bug was supposed fixed in Firmware Version 1.3.2.02.

I have an open ticket with cisco and they are looking at the packet trace but no joy so far.

So two questions:

(1) Did anyone else see this behaviour?

(2) In general I have not been so happy with this router. I bought it to replace a TP-Link TL-R470T+ that worked quite well for 3 years but it became the bottleneck when accessing my NAS. In the 6 months I had the RV325 I had to fix a strange daily reset (related to the lease from the ISP), the balanced mode worked poorly (seems better with the latest firmware), there are random connection freezes, the failover takes a long time, and I have another mystery problem with a Logitech Transporter that connects on Ethernet but stutters on WiFi. That is an old and finicky beast, so maybe it is not the router's fault but it used to work with the same set-up and tp-link.

So I am thinking of buying a new router. I often work from home and I need dual Wan and good bandwidth to the NAS. We remodeled not long ago so I have ethernet everywhere but family needs wi-fi.

Any recommendations? Ease & speed of setup are paramount. No CLI's . I am thinking to buy a Peplink Balance One (Core) and to keep the Ubiquiti APs that perform flawlessly or get a TP-Link TL-ER5120. (But the Peplink has better specs and I won't need a switch since it has enough ports). Eventually I am thinking of updating the APs or adding a third AP b/c even with 2 APs I can not cover well our entire apartment -- 1600 sqft but lots of wi-fi opaque walls.

Many thanks for any ideas and suggestions!

 

[Samir]

The rv series can be funky in terms of reliability. That being said, setting a static IP on the roku and plugging it in should be good start to getting it working.

As far as replacement, I've seen my share of multi-wan routers starting with the rv016 back over 10 years ago. Unfortunately, besides peplink, no one's really nailed down multi-wan to be smooth as butter (in the smb space) and you'll always run into some sort of issue that will need a workaround.

I've found the netgear fvs series vpn routers to have more solid uptimes than our rvs that needed to be rebooted daily for proper operation. But others have had nightmares with those too. That being said, I've not seen any bad things about the Netgear srx5308.

 

[HSA]

Thanks Samir! I'll wait to see if Cisco can offer any fix, but if not I will try Peplink first (on sale now at Amazon but not in stock), then srx5308.

 

[Samir]

I think setting the static IP on teh roku and just plugging it in will confirm if the rv is the issue or not. I wouldn't hold your breath for any resolution from Cisco unless it already exists in another firmware.

 

[System Error Message]

There is no fix for the cisco RV, Those VPN routers are outdated, horrible and unreliable and are still being sold. You're much better off with a consumer router like tp link (not dlink) or asus. Ubiquiti edgerouters use the same platform as VPN routers but have much better firmware and have much faster CPUs than the VPN routers and support VPN protocols that none of these VPN routers support (even consumer routers support more VPN protocols too).

Best thing you can do is return the cisco rv and get yourself either a consumer router or ubiquiti edgerouter depending on your needs.

 

[Samir]

There is no fix for the cisco RV, Those VPN routers are outdated, horrible and unreliable and are still being sold. You're much better off with a consumer router like tp link (not dlink) or asus. Ubiquiti edgerouters use the same platform as VPN routers but have much better firmware and have much faster CPUs than the VPN routers and support VPN protocols that none of these VPN routers support (even consumer routers support more VPN protocols too).

Best thing you can do is return the cisco rv and get yourself either a consumer router or ubiquiti edgerouter depending on your needs.

There's a lot of them out there installed without issue, so your comment isn't factual. No consumer routers have site-to-site vpn capability, so that's not a valid comparison either nor is your comment about more vpn protocols on a consumer router factual.

The edgerouters do have their merits in terms of performance, but are an order of magnitude more difficult to configure than the rv-series. I was hoping this wasn't the case so long now after they've been released, but I still see people struggling in the ubiquiti forums with something as basic as multi-wan.

 

[System Error Message]

There's a lot of them out there installed without issue, so your comment isn't factual. No consumer routers have site-to-site vpn capability, so that's not a valid comparison either nor is your comment about more vpn protocols on a consumer router factual.

The edgerouters do have their merits in terms of performance, but are an order of magnitude more difficult to configure than the rv-series. I was hoping this wasn't the case so long now after they've been released, but I still see people struggling in the ubiquiti forums with something as basic as multi-wan.

Its not just from a feature reliability standpoint. The VPN routers just simply cant compare to ubiquiti or other consumer routers from the standpoint of reliability, features and price and performance. You can do site to site VPN on some consumer routers like asus especially with RMerlin firmware by using both the vpn server and client.

If you look at the CPU of the vpn routers for instance sure its the same platform as ubiquiti edgerouters but the CPU is just much much slower. Infact pfsense is just as easy to configure. So theres really know reason to consider VPN routers when the platform they are on are outdated or terrible in various ways.

 

[Samir]

Its not just from a feature reliability standpoint. The VPN routers just simply cant compare to ubiquiti or other consumer routers from the standpoint of reliability, features and price and performance. You can do site to site VPN on some consumer routers like asus especially with RMerlin firmware by using both the vpn server and client.

If you look at the CPU of the vpn routers for instance sure its the same platform as ubiquiti edgerouters but the CPU is just much much slower. Infact pfsense is just as easy to configure. So theres really know reason to consider VPN routers when the platform they are on are outdated or terrible in various ways.

You need to prove these assertions. You CANNOT do IPsec site to site vpns on ANY consumer routers. That statement is completely false.

CPU power is akin to the size of the engine in a car--it's an indicator of performance, but not the dictator of it. You can compare specs all day long on router here on smallnetbuilder, but then check the real-world tests and see how differently they perform.

 

[System Error Message]

You need to prove these assertions. You CANNOT do IPsec site to site vpns on ANY consumer routers. That statement is completely false.

CPU power is akin to the size of the engine in a car--it's an indicator of performance, but not the dictator of it. You can compare specs all day long on router here on smallnetbuilder, but then check the real-world tests and see how differently they perform.

consumer routers can with a different firmware. Cost and performance wise the VPN routers lose out. If you want easy to configure theres pfsense and the x86 architecture will do VPN much faster as well. Pfsense can do site to site IPSEC, RMerlin's firmware also can with a limit of up to 3 per router (1 server and 2 clients).

the CPU is important as its a matter of performance for various things. For a business you would tend to use QoS as well so you're looking at NAT + QoS + VPN and when all 3 are used the vpn routers perform horribly and limit your options as well.

 

[Samir]

Changing firmwares, configuring pfsense, and these type of tasks are not things most small businesses have time to do without an IT dept. Thats why the smb routers like the rv series, netgear fvs series, etc exist.

There's always a better way to route, but if better routing doesn't help with an overall better business, then it's a waste of time.

 

[System Error Message]

Changing firmwares, configuring pfsense, and these type of tasks are not things most small businesses have time to do without an IT dept. Thats why the smb routers like the rv series, netgear fvs series, etc exist.

There's always a better way to route, but if better routing doesn't help with an overall better business, then it's a waste of time.

not true. you dont need an IT dept to handle pfsense. If what a business needs can be provided by a VPN router, the same effort is needed on pfsense as well only pfsense immediately shows that it can do more benefiting the business with various other functions related to the firewall as well.

If you know how to install an OS on a PC than pfsense is just as easy to use as any vpn router. Updating is simple now with any sort of linux/unix OS as they offer a package management system and most updates can be done without having to reboot, this is 1 less downtime. Changing a configuration on a linux OS or even pfsense doesnt require a reboot.

The issues with vpn routers is that they are unreliable, lack features, performance and cost more (not comparable to pfsense in cost though as you can reuse a PC or buy one the same price or make a high end one for more). As a device the fact that vpn routers suffer from the same unreliability as dlink, this means unexpected downtime for a business which is a bad thing. A PC even without ECC ram will run 24/7 as long as the ram used isnt some unknown brand or value ram. Since even a core2duo is faster than the VPN routers this means that the same device can be used in the future further reducing costs such as the need for a new and reducing waste at the same time. Feature wise the business will be set as it expands the features are already there allowing the business to do what it needs without having to waste time and effort with the limited vpn routers.

 

[sfx2000]

My home network is based on a Cisco RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Router with the last firmware version: v1.3.2.02 (2016-09-23, 15:17:06). The network consists of various devices + dual WAN ISPs (in balanced mode) + 2 Ubiquiti APs (802.11ac).

I can not connect a newly acquired Roku Premiere+ device (a video streamer) to my network. This device can be connected either via Ethernet or via Wi-Fi. Neither works. I think that the device is seen by the router but it never gets a DHCP address. (In WiFi mode I can see the device via the Ubiquity software utility) The same device connects without problems to a different router, and a different Roku device (an older generation, Roku 2 XS) connects without any problem to the RV325.

I tried to assign an address via MAC binding but it didn't help.

I have a vague suspicion that is related to this listed Cisco bug "No DHCP offer when host name includes illegal character (CSCva92006)" because the "Premiere +" hostname but this bug was supposed fixed in Firmware Version 1.3.2.02.

I have an open ticket with cisco and they are looking at the packet trace but no joy so far.

If you can change the hostname of the Roku, remove the "+" character - some dhcp daemons reserve this character...

Roku, as an internet device OEM, should realize this - the fix here needs to come from them if it cannot be changed.

 

[Samir]

not true. you dont need an IT dept to handle pfsense. If what a business needs can be provided by a VPN router, the same effort is needed on pfsense as well only pfsense immediately shows that it can do more benefiting the business with various other functions related to the firewall as well.

If you know how to install an OS on a PC than pfsense is just as easy to use as any vpn router. Updating is simple now with any sort of linux/unix OS as they offer a package management system and most updates can be done without having to reboot, this is 1 less downtime. Changing a configuration on a linux OS or even pfsense doesnt require a reboot.

The issues with vpn routers is that they are unreliable, lack features, performance and cost more (not comparable to pfsense in cost though as you can reuse a PC or buy one the same price or make a high end one for more). As a device the fact that vpn routers suffer from the same unreliability as dlink, this means unexpected downtime for a business which is a bad thing. A PC even without ECC ram will run 24/7 as long as the ram used isnt some unknown brand or value ram. Since even a core2duo is faster than the VPN routers this means that the same device can be used in the future further reducing costs such as the need for a new and reducing waste at the same time. Feature wise the business will be set as it expands the features are already there allowing the business to do what it needs without having to waste time and effort with the limited vpn routers.

I know all this about pfsense, but I think you haven't seen how much time smaller business owners have.

Even something as simple as reloading an os gets outsourced.

But the configuring of the router is seen as work that can be handled since router configuration at home as become common. Sometimes it also gets outsourced though when site-to-site vpns are involved.

Pfsense, while a wonderful product, is simply not 'plug and play' enough for most small businesses out there. (Even with my level of competency I avoided it.) It requires a high level of competency to get up and running solid enough for a business. One of the biggest problems is that it runs on standard computer hardware, which is prone to failure at multiple points--storage, power supply, memory, cpu--all of which can take a site down. Sure there's blade servers and industrial computers that can address the hardware situation, but then the cost is not reasonable. (In our case, the computer hardware we needed would have cost more than just a router like the rv series to handle the same network load.)

If pfsense made the best sense in terms of time invested and bang for buck, it would be the predominant router found in most small businesses. Because it is not, that tells you a lot right there. Not saying this can't change in the future, but this is where we are today.

 

[System Error Message]

I know all this about pfsense, but I think you haven't seen how much time smaller business owners have.

Even something as simple as reloading an os gets outsourced.

But the configuring of the router is seen as work that can be handled since router configuration at home as become common. Sometimes it also gets outsourced though when site-to-site vpns are involved.

Pfsense, while a wonderful product, is simply not 'plug and play' enough for most small businesses out there. (Even with my level of competency I avoided it.) It requires a high level of competency to get up and running solid enough for a business. One of the biggest problems is that it runs on standard computer hardware, which is prone to failure at multiple points--storage, power supply, memory, cpu--all of which can take a site down. Sure there's blade servers and industrial computers that can address the hardware situation, but then the cost is not reasonable. (In our case, the computer hardware we needed would have cost more than just a router like the rv series to handle the same network load.)

If pfsense made the best sense in terms of time invested and bang for buck, it would be the predominant router found in most small businesses. Because it is not, that tells you a lot right there. Not saying this can't change in the future, but this is where we are today.

I know your main business involves getting business vpn routers, however if they are hiring you you might as well setup pfsense for them instead as they are already paying you for expert help

 

[Samir]

I know your main business involves getting business vpn routers, however if they are hiring you you might as well setup pfsense for them instead as they are already paying you for expert help

Actually, I'm basically just a small business owner taking care of my own networks. But I'm also well-versed in technology.

I know first hand that I can't spend a day on setting up a pfsense box when that will cost $900 in gross sales.

 

[System Error Message]

Actually, I'm basically just a small business owner taking care of my own networks. But I'm also well-versed in technology.

I know first hand that I can't spend a day on setting up a pfsense box when that will cost $900 in gross sales.

doesnt take a day to set it up. You set it up outside your business hours and just switch it over for a total of a few minutes downtime. A lot of companies do their IT maintenance outside business hours, their IT department spends business hours providing support to the work force and outside hours doing the maintenance every once in a while.

 

[Samir]

I like to sleep outside of business hours.