WRVS4400N and WRV210 are junk. Don't waste your money!

Unanswered Question
Jun 28th, 2010

I purchased a WRV210 and a WRVS4400N for testing for our remote home users because I trusted the Cisco name. I don't know who approved these routers for general release but they should be fired.


I first purchased a WRV210. It dropped connections so fast I couldn't get a home page. You couldn't access the configuration interface once the router dropped a internet connection without resetting the unit. I returned that one for a refund and exchange on the WRVS4400N thinking that I just got a lemon.


I was wrong. The WRVS440N isn't any better.


  1. The DDNS client doesn't work properly. Got me blacklisted because of reconnects to the internet.
  2. You can't connect to the router by VPN from behind a NAT. If you are in a clients office/hotel and using their internet connection to VPN to retrieve a file you can be assured that it is NAT'd. That is going to work great!
  3. Certificates aren't recognized by the VPN client so you don't know if you are connecting to the proper host


These are just some of the problems I have found and isn't exhaustive. From the looks of the posts concerning IPSEC VPN's they don't work either.


I also have a project to install Cisco 2811's. I hope that the VPN connections to those work better than this.


Who do I send the pieces of this thing to for a refund? The return policy for my retailer is 7 days so I am stuck with this piece of junk now.


You can send the cheque for beta testing as well. I figure you owe me about $1500.00 for that too.


Anyone out there satisfied with this product I would like to know?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
danilo.jorge Mon, 06/28/2010 - 14:21

Interestingly, I have two clients with the WRVS4400N V2.0 and none of the problems mentioned by you happen to them.



Now i´m interested in knowing who else has the problems above



Thanks.

.

Actions

This Discussion