NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
AMRivlin
Mar 21, 2013Apprentice
OS6 now works on x86 Legacy WARNING: NO NTGR SUPPORT!
Update: It is now unofficially possible using NTGR images to update legacy hardware to os6.X
See Post #3, for directions to install 6.2.1 on x86 Ultra and Pro Models. (ARM NOT SUPPORTED by this OS)
Be forewarned, this requires a SYSTEM WIPE and likely voids any warranty support from NTGR
Supported so far: pro 2/4/6, ultra 2/4/6, old pro / Pioneer Pro, 2100v2
Not Supported: NVX and 2100v1
Thanks go out to "HomeBrew Anonymous" for making this possible.
Update 2: A firmware image to downgrade back to 4.2.26 is now available. See this thread. While this downgrade should get you a working system again on the supported firmware, be forewarned this requires a SYSTEM WIPE and NetGear also does not provide support for this downgrade. If you have issues seek help on these forums.
Original Post/Gripes
I have been reading these forums since Monday's announcement and there has been a resounding "ooof" regarding the fact the Ultras and Pros are unsupported for future OS improvements.
To clear the air: it would appear Netgear will never support os6 on past hardware. I have almost come to grips with this, and at least they have been open and honest with their forward direction and aren't stringing us along. viewtopic.php?f=138&t=70131
The upside is our devices still work and are mostly stable and eventually we can upgrade to a new shell that has os6 support, but in the meantime our $500-1000 investment is unable to take advantage of modern features we all desire.
I don't think I can add a poll here at RN forums, but I would like to garner support for a 100% unsupported home brew of the os6 on Pro6 units.
If we get enough support perhaps a talented member(s) here would help release a homebrew of sorts.
The 3 main caveats are:
1. Netgear will never be held responsible/your warranty is void
2. A format is required (new FS and OS)
3. Data loss is highly possible
If you are still interested please post a reply to this thread.
mdgm and I have decided that its time to lock this thread. So please do post any new OS6 on Legacy issues on their own threads.
1,274 Replies
Replies have been turned off for this discussion
- beisser1Tutorits just split in two archives now instead of putting both in one zip
- neoneroAspirantI thought it's one for older nas x86 and arm etc.
- pywongAspirant
neonero wrote: I thought it's one for older nas x86 and arm etc.
I wish it was, it would be nice to have a new OS fully support. - beisser1Tutorno x86 = 3xx and 5xx series while arm = 1xx series and the 2120
- bajorgensenAspirantHi all.
I am trying to make a VMware image for easier testing, but syslinux just gives me "loading aborted".
Seems like perhaps Netgear has modified syslinux to prevent them from being booted on other HW?
Anyone tried a similar experiment? - chirpaLuminaryThey use an old version of syslinux, v3.61 I believe. The newer 4.0.x didn't work with it last I tried.
If you 'dd' your boot flash, and connect it as a VMDK, it should work. - RoyanAspirantHi.
As I mentioned earlier, my PRO 2 gets disconnected from the network a lot.
Each time I get a system log like below.
Earlier I wold be reassigned with a default address like 169.254.26.236 (which means the the NAS can't connect to DHCP afaik).
I would then have to reboot to get connected again.
So I used the web interface to set eth0 to use a static IP.
This works insofar that I get back online immediately since it just reassigns the original static 192.168.1.108 address. No reboot needed, and I'm back online in 3-6 seconds.
But I do get disconnected a lot. Three times today.
I don't know if it's' my WNDR4500 that has hiccups, or if it's the OS6/PRO2 combination that causes it.
But if anyone else has this problem, try assigning a static IP.
brgds
RoyanApr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {RX} 267273 packets 73468586 bytes
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {TX} 114420 packets 41655576 bytes
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {update} flags 36867 <UP>
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: connman_inet_clear_ipv6_address: Invalid argument
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {newlink} index 2 address XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX mtu 9000
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {newlink} index 2 operstate 2 <DOWN>
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: connman_inet_clear_ipv6_address: Invalid argument
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Withdrawing address record for 192.168.1.108 on eth0.
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface eth0.IPv4 with address 192.168.1.108.
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Interface eth0.IPv4 no longer relevant for mDNS.
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Withdrawing address record for fe80::AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA on eth0.
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface eth0.IPv6 with address fe80::AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA.
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Interface eth0.IPv6 no longer relevant for mDNS.
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} route 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.1 scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} address 192.168.1.108/24 label eth0
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} route 192.168.1.0 gw 0.0.0.0 scope 253 <LINK>
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} route fe80:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:35 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} route ff00:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route ff00:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route fe80:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {RX} 267273 packets 73468586 bytes
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {TX} 114420 packets 41655576 bytes
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {update} flags 102467 <UP,RUNNING,LOWER_UP>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {newlink} index 2 address XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX mtu 9000
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {newlink} index 2 operstate 6 <UP>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: Skipping disconnect of carrier, network is connecting.
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Joining mDNS multicast group on interface eth0.IPv4 with address 192.168.1.108.
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: New relevant interface eth0.IPv4 for mDNS.
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Registering new address record for 192.168.1.108 on eth0.IPv4.
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} route fe80:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {del} route ff00:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route ff00:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route fe80:: gw :: scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} address 192.168.1.108/24 label eth0 family 2
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route 192.168.1.0 gw 0.0.0.0 scope 253 <LINK>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route 192.168.1.1 gw 0.0.0.0 scope 253 <LINK>
Apr 23 20:09:38 ernst connmand[1758]: eth0 {add} route 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.1 scope 0 <UNIVERSE>
Apr 23 20:09:39 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Joining mDNS multicast group on interface eth0.IPv6 with address fe80::AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA.
Apr 23 20:09:39 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: New relevant interface eth0.IPv6 for mDNS.
Apr 23 20:09:39 ernst avahi-daemon[1746]: Registering new address record for fe80::AAAA:AAAA:AAAA:AAAA on eth0.*.
Apr 23 20:09:43 ernst connmand[1758]: Online check failed for 0x6b1240 Wired - bajorgensenAspirantIt is syslinux 3.31. It has been modified, but I cannot find it in the open source that is published.
Only reference is in \buildroot-2012.11.1\boot\syslinux
Seems like Netgear "forgot" to publish the source... bajorgensen wrote:
Seems like Netgear "forgot" to publish the source...
Seems a running theme... It's not the first time.- maboehmeAspirant
Royan wrote: Hi.
As I mentioned earlier, my PRO 2 gets disconnected from the network a lot.
Hi,
did you try a diffrent Maximum Transmission Unit? Sometimes mtu 9000 (the maximum afaik) makes proplems with diffrent hardware... give it a try und share your expirience please! :D
Best regards,
Martin
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!