Whatsapp not downloading images on one wifi network

zagmund

This one really has me stumped. We have 4 Android phones in the house, all with WhatsApps installed and generally running fine. All 4 of them are Motorola Moto Gs of differing generations, and they are all on Tesco but I don't see a direct relevance to that as the issue exists on wifi.

The problem - for some reason, when we are at home and using wifi (2 of the phones don't have data turned on ever, so they *have to* use wifi) there is a problem sending & receiving images. In general, messages come and go as normal *except* for images.

If I try to send an image, I get the spinning thing for 30 or 40 seconds and then it gives up. As soon as I get to any other wifi network the image will send, so it's not like WhatsApp has a problem with images as such. Similarly, as soon as I turn on data the image will send. The same applies for photos that are sent to me. This applies in the same way to the other 3 phones in the house.

I "work in IT", so I know that from the transmission point of view, there's no inherent difference between the data for the photos and the data for other messages, so I'm really stumped as to why the problem only applies to images.

Today I got a WhatsApp phone call while on this network, and I know the kids stream videos and stuff to their phones over the same wifi network so there's no real bandwidth issue.

Does anyone know what might be causing this problem? I had a look at the WhatsApp FAQ and there was one which looked to be exactly the one I wanted, about problems downloading images. Unfortunately it was entirely focused on problems with the SD card, but we don't use SD cards *and* the images download normally everywhere else.

Help would be appreciated as the family are really starting to get on my case at this stage.

z

projectgtr

Do you mind me asking who your ISP is and are you using the standard modem? Is it Vodafone?

zagmund

Yep, Vodafone HG658c.

I have two of them in the house - the first terminates the DSL and has no wireless connection. It's wired to a second HG658c which handles the wireless & wired connections around the house.

The DSL one (19.168.1.1) is on the latest firmware (B227) and the wireless one (192.168.1.4) is on the previous version (B214).

I have a couple of older DSL routers floating about upstairs, so I can swap out the .1 device, if someone can tell me the settings I need to make it talk to Vodafone.

z

vistaphotos

For what it's worth, been having some fun with NTP being blocked on HG658c with V100R001C172B227 (http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/2057558570/2) Since your problem is similarly screwy I wonder is it in any way related?

ED E

zagmund wrote: »

I have two of them in the house - the first terminates the DSL and has no wireless connection. It's wired to a second HG658c which handles the wireless & wired connections around the house.

OP says you're a tech, but Double NAT, Double NAT, Double NAT?

Why WA wouldnt send images over HTTPs I dont know, but this seems the only likely solution.

DopeTech

Unlikely but go to settings - data usage, and press the menu button, the select restricted networks to make sure your router isn't flagged as one.

ciarano

New version of WhatsApp launched this week and since then big delay in messages sending and receiving also if you try attaching pics they won't upload so I reckon it needs a update fix hope this helps

zagmund

Sorry about the delay getting back on this. There's no double NAT going on - the only place that NAT is happening is on the box connected to the DSL. I had a look at the restricted networks setting and it's not restricted.

I have a hunch (but no time to check yet) that it might be related to a routing problem I noticed a while back and didn't have a chance to fully fix. It looks like the DSL router won't route any 169.x.x.x addresses instead of just 169.254.x.x ones. I had a look and WhatsApp certainly have a couple of address ranges in the 169.x.x.x range, so it's possible that the traffic is getting to my router and then being dropped. Technically at least, this would explain the issue.

Thanks for the suggestions & input.

z

Fluffy88

I'm in the same strange situation, except my 2nd router is a MikroTik.

Haven't looked into it at all as I don't use WhatsApp so it doesn't bother me :P
I might get some time over Easter to take a look, so if you find anything let us know

zagmund

As a quick check, see if you can ping central.bitdefender.com. I had problems with that originally until I added a static route (on my router) to their network. If you can ping it then it's not the 169.x.x.x address problem.

C:\Users\zagmund>ping central.bitdefender.com

Pinging central.bitdefender.com [169.50.7.143] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 169.50.7.143: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=51
Reply from 169.50.7.143: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=51
Reply from 169.50.7.143: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=51
Reply from 169.50.7.143: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 169.50.7.143:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 34ms

zagmund

I eventually got around to checking this out yesterday and found the issue. As expected there was a route defined for 169.0.0.0/8 which was causing the problems.

I manually added in routes for the various 169.4x and 169.5x ranges belonging to WhatsApp and it immediately fixed the problem.

It's been a while since I did anything with these devices. It looks like br0 is a bridged interface, but I can't remember what way I configured it.

z

ED E

At a glance looks like a stock route to prevent private traffic navigating out via WAN (self assigned, multicast).

Discodog

I note that Whatsapp make a big thing about encryption & security but they require a mobile number for your account. Surely that makes anyone easily traceable ?

ED E

Discodog wrote: »

I note that Whatsapp make a big thing about encryption & security but they require a mobile number for your account. Surely that makes anyone easily traceable ?

They're encryption is excellent but there is basically no authentication.

If you want to solve this use Threema instead, authentication can be done in person making MITM/impersonation impossible.

Discodog

ED E wrote: »

They're encryption is excellent but there is basically no authentication.

If you want to solve this use Threema instead, authentication can be done in person making MITM/impersonation impossible.

Does Threema require a hone number ? I see that's it paid only with no trial.
Edit : Just found out that it doesn't. Great comment at the end of a review:

"If your secure communications platform isn't being used by terrorists and pedophiles, you're probably doing it wrong."

ED E

You can match by ID.

Discodog

ED E wrote: »

You can match by ID.

Seems very impressive & nice interface. Has a typical Swiss feel about it. Thanks for the tip.