Tivo and Direcway DW6000 problem

Discussion in 'TiVo Home Media Features & TiVoToGo' started by jahern, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. Jan 13, 2005 #61 of 156
    Laserfan

    Laserfan Member

    440
    4
    Apr 25, 2000
    USA
    FWIW I do NOT think it's a "file size too big to upload" problem.

    I can re-connect to a phone line any time, and yesterday I did so; got everything insofar as a "valid daily call" is concerned, then tried the ethernet again to same result i.e. "Call failed-service unavailable".

    I sense it has something to do with the "turbo proxy" also, tho am at a loss to explain why everything else I've thrown at the satellite has worked, other than Tivo.
     
  2. Jan 14, 2005 #62 of 156
    Laserfan

    Laserfan Member

    440
    4
    Apr 25, 2000
    USA
    My Greek is a little rusty, so this doesn't make much sense to me, but maybe there are clues to our problem in here? From the dslreports.com website:

    If you use the consumer version of a DirecWay product, the IP address of your satellite adapter is not routable on the internet. It can only be used on private networks. Hughes uses a method of translating your IP address to a routable address called Network Address Translation. This is where "NAT" comes from. In a typical NAT configuration, your computer appears to every other computer on the internet to have the IP address of the machine that is performing the NAT services. All your traffic goes through that machine. It keeps a table (a NAT table, strangely enough)of entries of everything you have requested from the Internet so that when the response comes back, it knows who requested it and where the response should be sent.

    NAT is used as a way to conserve IP addresses, as Internet routable IP addresses are neither free or readily available in huge quantities. It also provides a good level of initial security, as unless your computer requested it, it is very hard for an external computer to send you anything. It can cause issues for some applications that insist on knowing the exact IP address of the computer they are talking to. This can make being a VPN client difficult, and can make it impossible to connect to your machine as an FTP or PcAnywhere server.

    Now the odd thing about the Hughes NAT is that sometimes it seems to work like every other NAT in that your public, routable IP address is shared with every other user going through the same NAT device. Other times, the translated address is unique to you alone. This is the phenomenon we around here call being "un-nated". It really is a misnomer, because your address is always a result of NAT. Even the unique one you get during the "un-nated" phases is still not the address of your adapter and has been translated for use on the Net. The difference is if your NAT'd public IP address is unique to you, then any security benefit of NAT is lost, and those applications that require you to have a unique public, routable IP start magically working.

    It has been the experience of DirecWay users that when they are NOT using the proxy AND they have a public IP address ending in a single digit, they are "nated" or are sharing the address with many other users. If that address when not using the proxy ends in some other multi digit octet, they are "un-nated" and have a unique IP. During these times you will see many hits on your firewall as your computer is completely exposed to the Internet, and all the port scanning traffic.
     
  3. Jan 14, 2005 #63 of 156
    djmay

    djmay New Member

    26
    0
    Jan 4, 2005
    Novi, MI
    Doesn't seem like NAT is the issue since it worked with the DW4000.
    As long as we are just making http requests then the response would be allowed back in through the NAT. If we were instead making a request on one port which triggers a response on a different port then there would be a problem. This is how the ftp protocol worked the command connection to the server is on port 21, when you request a file the data is sent on port 20... (you can usually configure settings on firewalls to handle triggered ports like this).

    It would help if we could get one of the TiVo people to tell us how the call actually works. TiVoBill? Anyone? Does it send everything over HTTP? or does it use other ports?
     
  4. Jan 14, 2005 #64 of 156
    djmay

    djmay New Member

    26
    0
    Jan 4, 2005
    Novi, MI
    I hit Submit to soon:

    I don't think there is any need for a trigger since I had a NATing firewall on my cable internat connection before I moved, and did not have to set anything special up for it to work.

    I did have to set things up for file transfer in some of the instant messaging, FTP, and that Dialpad voice over IP application...
     
  5. Jan 18, 2005 #65 of 156
    ebockelman

    ebockelman PR#6

    5,497
    105
    Jul 12, 2001
    Orlando,...
    Doing a thread bump to see if anyone has made any progress on this problem...
     
  6. Jan 20, 2005 #66 of 156
    djmay

    djmay New Member

    26
    0
    Jan 4, 2005
    Novi, MI
    Update on the new TiVo software version 7.1. I got it early this morning via phoneline and still am not able to connect via the DW6000...
     
  7. Jan 24, 2005 #67 of 156
    rvastronomer

    rvastronomer New Member

    2
    0
    Jan 24, 2005
    Here is some evidence that this is a NAT problem. I have a DW4000 that does NOT work. I think this is because I have the Business Edition, and I pay for a static IP address. Most DW4000 users have the consumer service with dynamic IP addresses. So this is somehow related to how DW handles NAT translation.

    From an earlier post:

    Maybe something to do with NAT?

    consumer version of a DirecWay product, the IP address of your satellite adapter is not routable on the internet. ...Hughes uses a method of translating your IP address to a routable address called Network Address Translation.

    The difference is if your NAT'd public IP address is unique to you, then any security benefit of NAT is lost, and those applications that require you to have a unique public, routable IP start magically working.

    It has been the experience of DirecWay users that when they are NOT using the proxy AND they have a public IP address ending in a single digit, they are "nated" or are sharing the address with many other users. If that address when not using the proxy ends in some other multi digit octet, they are "un-nated" and have a unique IP. During these times you will see many hits on your firewall as your computer is completely exposed to the Internet, and all the port scanning traffic.
     
  8. Jan 30, 2005 #68 of 156
    besposito

    besposito New Member

    14
    0
    Jan 30, 2005
    I have a DW4020 and have started to experience the exact same problems this week with my Series2 TiVo.

    I've got the DW4020 with the business edition via Skycasters. I am using a Linksys 802.11g router and the Dlink wireless USB adapter sold at tivo.com.

    The broadband connection had been working fine for several months, but this week it started failing with the "Failed while negotiating" error message. I contacted TiVo support and after an hour of the standard troubleshooting they were unable to help. According to TiVo, they feel the issue is most likely a proxy server problem with Direcway.

    As with most others, my network works fine. I can play music and photos over local net. I can even do a remote schedule via tivo.com and that works fine.

    I know this thread has focused on the Dw6000...but it now seems that the issue has now expanded to the 4020.
     
  9. Jan 31, 2005 #69 of 156
    ebockelman

    ebockelman PR#6

    5,497
    105
    Jul 12, 2001
    Orlando,...
    Most of the DW4000 owners haven't seen any problem, though. I think the issue is the HTTP proxy that is built into the DW6000. The DW6000 forces all HTTP traffic through its proxy. The Tivo communicates on port 80, but doesn't strictly follow the HTTP specs. I think this is confusing the DW6000 proxy and causing the connection to fail.
     
  10. Feb 3, 2005 #70 of 156
    Les69

    Les69 New Member

    1
    0
    Feb 3, 2005
    Texas
    I've seen two separate thoughts that seem to be related. The first pertaining to HTTP/1.1 and missing Content-Length header seemed to be lost:

    It means that, despite what the techs above posted, they are blocking port 80 and forcing you to send all traffic for that port (normal WWW traffic) via a proxy instead...

    So, to get around this problem, you'll need a much more complicated solution. You would need to setup a transparent HTTP/1.1 proxy (not HTTP/1.0) and force all the TiVo traffic through it, then to the DirecWay 6000's proxy.

    Or, if folks can get ahold of a tech at DirecWay who really knows what's going on, DirecWay's proxy should be able to be patched to handle TiVo's HTTP/1.1 web requests (specifically, must be able to handle POST requests without a Content-Length header).

    The second (and more recent)

    ...I think the issue is the HTTP proxy that is built into the DW6000. The DW6000 forces all HTTP traffic through its proxy. The Tivo communicates on port 80, but doesn't strictly follow the HTTP specs. I think this is confusing the DW6000 proxy and causing the connection to fail.

    Does anyone know anything more about "...doesn't strictly follow the HTTP specs" and HTTP/1.0 vs 1.1
     
  11. Feb 3, 2005 #71 of 156
    ccwf

    ccwf 国際化 Member

    8,634
    0
    Dec 29, 2001
    Malibu
    I know a fair amount on the subject. If you search, you'll find occasional correspondence between me and the HTTP/1.1 authors from when HTTP/1.1 was being drafted.

    On the missing Content-Length header issue, here's the specific HTTP/1.1 language:
    In this case, TiVo DVRs know the TiVo servers they are talking to are HTTP/1.1 compliant and therefore do not need to (and do not) send the Content-Length header field. However, if the message is silently intercepted by a HTTP/1.0 proxy server, the proxy will likely barf on the missing Content-Length header, which used to be required in HTTP/1.0.

    It's not clear that this is the problem with DirecWay, but it has turned out to be the problem with a number of ISPs who put their customers behind non-HTTP/1.1 transparent proxies.
     
  12. Feb 3, 2005 #72 of 156
    Laserfan

    Laserfan Member

    440
    4
    Apr 25, 2000
    USA
    ccwf can you (or anyone else here) point us in the direction of a "how-to" re: setting up a 1.1 proxy, for testing? This should be possible on one of my spare networked PCs yes (or no)?

    My problem is that I barely know how to spell proxy. But I'm loaded with enthusiasm.... :rolleyes:
     
  13. Feb 14, 2005 #73 of 156
    leemedic

    leemedic New Member

    1
    0
    Jan 29, 2005
    Or is there a way to set up the wireless Tivo's to use my computer (that is connected to the DW6000) as the gateway making it look my computer is accessing the internet?
     
  14. Mar 26, 2005 #74 of 156
    Mad Dog

    Mad Dog New Member

    1
    0
    Mar 26, 2005
    I had read a post on another message board that Direcway was beta testing a fix and that they had four other tivo users using the 4.3.1.4 upgrade and this had fixed the problem.
    Does anyone have anymore info on this?
     
  15. Mar 26, 2005 #75 of 156
    gfkjr

    gfkjr New Member

    14
    0
    Jun 15, 2002
    Brookland, AR

    Thanks for posting that, that gives me some hope. I'm still using the 4.3.0.9 software. Maybe I'll get an upgrade soon. I figured us Tivo/Direcway users were just out of luck.
     
  16. Apr 23, 2005 #76 of 156
    djmay

    djmay New Member

    26
    0
    Jan 4, 2005
    Novi, MI
    I was still waiting for 4.3.1.4 to come to my DW6000, so I tried to see where I could get by talking to DirectWay.

    I asked them about a version 4.3.1.4 version of the software, and the person said that there is no version with that number. I told her I heard it was being beta tested, and she said that they do not do any type of beta testing.

    So I called back later and talked to someone else. I asked them if I could get on the list to beta test future versions of their firmware. He also said they do not do any beta testing...

    I tried an online chat with the DirectWay people... I told her that that my TiVo was not able to connect to the TiVo servers. She told me that they do not support Voice over IP. So I explained to her that it is not a voice over IP that it was a DVR. She insisted they still do not support voice over IP.

    Anyone have any more information about this 4.3.1.4 update for the DW6000?
     
  17. Apr 29, 2005 #77 of 156
    ebockelman

    ebockelman PR#6

    5,497
    105
    Jul 12, 2001
    Orlando,...
    What message board did you see this on? Perhaps there are people there who can tell us how they got 4.3.1.4.
     
  18. May 3, 2005 #78 of 156
    beachchef

    beachchef New Member

    6
    0
    May 2, 2005
    Belize
    When I first got direcway service a year ago (DW6000, consumer edition) my Tivo (Series 1 Sony) gave the same problem as what everyone is describing. I upgraded to business service about 4 months ago (with a static IP), connected Tivo and it worked with no problems at all. Configuration is as follows: Tivo connected to a Netgear MR814 with DHCP activated (LAN side 192.168.103.xxx). Netgear MR814 WAN side connected to DW6000 and MR814 gets it's WAN IP address from the Direcway (it is one digit different from the IP address of the DW6000 itself). MR814 MTU was set to the default value of 1500.

    Worked fine until yesterday, then it just stopped. I was in the process of running the guided setup - I live in the Caribbean and the cable TV I get is essentially a rebroadcast of the DirecTV package sold throughout the region (similar lineup to C-band satellite) so finding a compatible lineup is difficult - I was looking for a better one than what I was using. So I do not know if I messed something up while doing that, but it seems unlikely.

    Tried restarting Tivo, changing the MR814 MTU to 1460 etc etc with no luck. Possibly a bad satellite day, email seems okay although I am getting quite a lot of "Document Contains No Data" messages when browsing with Firefox.

    A few minutes after posting this, it all started working again so I suppose it was a temporary (1 1/2 day) Direcway problem.

    I am happy to share information about my setup, DW6000 setting etc to whomever wants it. Maybe it was just dumb luck that got it working in the first place. I understand basic networking so anyone who wants to know ifo about my configuration needs to tell me what info you need.
     
  19. May 18, 2005 #79 of 156
    biker4648

    biker4648 New Member

    1
    0
    May 18, 2005
    Try this in your web browser and see if there is anything worth looking at or at least playing with. 192.168.0.1/fs/advanced/advanced.html
     
  20. Jun 6, 2005 #80 of 156
    gtxpress

    gtxpress New Member

    1
    0
    Jun 6, 2005
    I came across this while doing some on line searches. Since the post is rather old, I am unclear if you ever solved your problem or not. But here goes.
    First, I will make some assumptions.
    When you had your 4000 system it sounds like you were on satellite G11.
    When you updated to the 6000 did they change your satellite assignement?
    If yes, then I believe you will find the following to be true.
    Direcway employs what is called 'PAT' (port allocation translation) on 'some' of the satellite they use. G11, happens to be one they do not do this on. This also happens to be where a lot of the older 4000 accounts were commissioned.
    When you make a request on port 80, 83 or 87 they arbitrate the destination (return path) port to another port. It does not effect you because it will automatically redirect the return IP packet to the correct port and send it down to your system on port 80,83 or 87. It is designed to protect their system.
    So, lets make another assumption. It sounds like you are using the consumer account at $59.95 / month? If not then disregard the rest, as it is another problem.
    If this is true then you are trapped by that aspect. The Tvio is wanting to make a secure connection (maybe even IPSec) connection and since Direcway maybe using PaT it does not know how to reach you because it keep sending its replies on port 80 and Direcway is listening on a different port for the reply.
    The fix is more expensive. IF you upgrade to the professional account with a static IP address, then each request you send is always returned to their system on the designated port and therefor your system will connect and transfer your information.
    While it is true that the 6000 system is a router, it is not used in that fashion. It is used as a gateway device and the far side (satellite side) connection is using a different address than what you see. Actually, I believe there are 3 to 4 different addresses used BEFORE you information ever leaves the NOC going to the Internet. There is a firewall built into the 6000 system but it is turned off by default. I believe this is done, so that they can actually manage your system (including updates) from their side.
    We have run across this many times with people that get a Dway system to use remotely to another location with vpn's. The consumer version will fail almost all of the time and especially if the VPN employs IPsec as it means of transfer. The cure is a static IP address with Direcway.
    Hope this helps
    GT
     

Share This Page