Nighthawk RAX120 Traffic Failing on Wired Network.

Guru

Jul 20, 2021

> [...] if I perform a Telnet to a host, eg telnet google.com 443 it
> will connect for a short time then disconnect, interestingly if I telnet
> google.com 80, it keeps its connection

"keeps its connection" for how long?

What makes you think that that behavior is abnormal?

      $ date ; telnet google.com 443 ; date
      Tue Jul 20 10:10:34 CDT 2021
      Trying 142.251.32.14...
      Connected to google.com.
      Escape character is '^]'.
      Connection closed by foreign host.
      Tue Jul 20 10:10:44 CDT 2021

      $ date ; telnet google.com 80 ; date
      Tue Jul 20 10:18:36 CDT 2021
      Trying 142.251.32.14...
      Connected to google.com.
      Escape character is '^]'.
      Connection closed by foreign host.
      Tue Jul 20 10:22:36 CDT 2021

Around here (D7000[v1], V1.0.1.78_1.0.1), one does fail faster than
the other. Which hasn't bothered me.

> I have since rolled back to RAX120-V1.2.0.16 and re-set the router and
> configured it again, it still failed with the same symptoms.

From that, some people might conclude that the firmware update was
unrelated to this "problem".

> Does anyone have any suggestions of where to take this next, or do I
> just take it back for a refund?

Try a test or a problem description which provides some useful
information? I wouldn't expect a different router to change the
behavior of Google's web servers.

antinode
Guru
Jul 20, 2021
> Thank you for not being Helpful,

   You're welcome. And I thank you for the large can of red herring in
your problem description.

> I have given examples of the behaviour, In short the Router Won't
> connect to the Internet via the Wired network.

   That's too "In short". And what about the non-Wired network?

   "Won't" is not a useful problem description. It does not say what
you did. It does not say what happened when you did it. As usual,
showing actual actions (commands) with their actual results (error
messages, LED indicators, ...) can be more helpful than vague
descriptions or interpretations.

> Did you note the fact that I had stated I spent 2 hours on the phone
> with Netgear support, [...]

   Did you notice that I did not participate in that conversation, and
have no idea of its contents?

> [...] did you note I have identified the errors returned in the
> browser?

   I might have gotten distracted by the pointless Telnet nonsense,
which did not demonstrate a failure. I didn't look very closely after
that.

> [...] it still failed with the same symptoms. [...]

   Always? Occasionally?

   Visit http://netgear.com/support , put in your model number, and look
for Documentation. Get the User Manual (at least). Read. Look for the
LED descriptions and "Troubleshoot".

   To what is the router connected? Some kind of modem or ONT? Have
you tried bypassing the router, and connecting directly to that? How
did you decide that the router is at fault, and not some other gizmo?

   Have you tried the usual panacea, a settings (misnomer: Factory)
reset and manual reconfiguration?
- Veshengo
  Aspirant
  Jul 20, 2021
  I fail to see any red hearings, but let us go through this further.
  “And what about the non-Wired network?”
  Sorry I hadn’t explicitly stated this, good point. Yes Wireless connections work perfectly.
  When using a Wireless connection with the same device (So unplug the net cable on my computer and use wireless (Same device)) and all traffic works.
  Note also, I have attempted to use the wired connection with the Wireless card disable to ensure there is no case of asymmetric routing, and this didn’t address the issue.
  “"Won't" is not a useful problem description”
  That is true, but
  If I browse to something the error returned is “ERR_CONNECTION_RESET” or “ERR_CONNECTION_CLOSED”
  Is a useful problem description with the two additional factors of
  I still get DNS returned, and if I perform a Telnet to a host,
  &
  “wired connections still work perfectly for resources inside my network”
  “I might have gotten distracted by the pointless Telnet nonsense”
  That telnet “nonsense” was to show that there is still a connection of sorts, it will resolve DNS, it will route traffic to a target, so discarding it as nonsense seems to be counterproductive
  All symptoms are consistent, none of them are intermittent
  In terms of the LED Indicators they are flashing white for all connections, no evidence that the router believes there is an issue
  “To what is the router connected? Some kind of modem or ONT”
  A Cable Modem
  “ Have you tried bypassing the router, and connecting directly to that”
  No, because the router works fine when using wireless.
  “How did you decide that the router is at fault, and not some other gizmo?”
  Because the router works fine when using wireless.
  “Have you tried the usual panacea, a settings (misnomer: Factory) reset and manual reconfiguration?”
  Yep, at least 5 times now.
  Any thoughts?
  - antinode
    Guru
    Jul 21, 2021
    > That telnet "nonsense" was to show that there is still a connection of
    > sorts, it will resolve DNS, it will route traffic to a target, so
    > discarding it as nonsense seems to be counterproductive
    
       My impression was that you were complaining about the time-out error.
    Not answering the question ("What makes you think that that behavior is
    abnormal?") didn't clarify what you intended to show. When you're
    complaining about comm errors, a test which shows a comm error is not
    obviously a demonstration of success.
    
    > [...] Wireless connections work perfectly.
    
       That's much more significant than any cryptic Telnet experiments.
    
       How many different wired devices exhibit the same problem(s)?
    
    > When using a Wireless connection with the same device (So unplug the
    > net cable on my computer and use wireless (Same device)) and all traffic
    > works.
    
       "Same device", but not, I'd guess, the same IP address. And it is
    different hardware.
    
    > "wired connections still work perfectly for resources inside my
    > network"
    
       Does that include between a wired and a wireless device?
    
       I've never seen it, but I can imagine a hardware problem in the path
    between the router's LAN Ethernet stuff and its WAN side. Wired-LAN to
    wired-LAN could work through such a problem if the network switch is a
    relatively independent functional block.
    
    > [...] reset [...]
    
    > Yep, at least 5 times now.
    
       If I were desperate, then I might try loading the old firmware one
    more time, doing another reset and manual reconfiguration, and verifying
    that multiple wired devices suffer from the same misbehavior. In that
    case, I'd tend to suspect the hardware.
    
       Assumptions:
    
        "If I browse to something" means multiple popular sites (Google,
          Netgear, ...)
    
    More than one computer/device exhibits the problem.
    
    No conflicting (static?) LAN IP addresses.
    
       Definitely not something I've seen or seen reported.

Forum Discussion

Nighthawk RAX120 Traffic Failing on Wired Network.