[Cerowrt-devel] [Cerowrt-users] Static leases not working?

[Dave Taht]

cerowrt-devel is the right place.

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:27 AM, R. <redag2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dave, that worked!
>
> Only two more little issues that are bugging right now:
>
> 1. The Voip/ATA devices on the 'new' subnetwork (172.30.43.x) have a
> hard time accessing the internet. On every loss of connectivity, I
> have to configure the device to use a different port, after which it
> will finally reach the net. The Voip/ATA devices on the 'old'
> subnetwork (172.30.42.x) do not have that issue. All devices have the
> same configuration, except for the mapped SIP port.

Not clear to me what you are doing to "map" a port. Post your firewall
rules? Is upnp in play?

>
> 2. Heavy internet usage causes a crash on the Wi-Fi; almost on a daily
> basis. It looks like nbd (Felix?) has pushed a few good commits on the
> OpenWRT project that have mostly fixed this. I look forward to a new
> build of CeroWRT that includes them.

We are painfully aware of this problem. See bug 442. It is the sole
remaining blocker for a stable release.

Are you running with WPA enabled?

After taking a break from this for over a week (in part to build up the
yurtlab, in part because I needed to do some stuff that generated
revenue, and in part because I'd burned out)...

I'll do a new build for everyone and then start intensive tests again...

While felix just apparently fixed a LOT of broken stuff, none
of it looks to reflect directly on the characteristics of the problem
we see. I don't see a memory leak, (fixed in mac80211 just this
weekend) - what I see is possibly a memory corruption on the
crypto side.

I did complete a better build for the archer c7v2 that at least has
a semi-working switch. Ath10k crashes if you look at it funny.

>
> Otherwise, it's going great. Thank you for everything you've done so
> far with the project!
>
> (Oh, and I'd rather post on this users mailing list than to clutter
> the more dev-inclined mailing list, which I think is what it was made
> for. Please correct me if I should do otherwise.)

There are very few people on cerowrt-users and I'd just as soon
retire it in favor of not splitting the conversation.

> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cerowrt has broken up each interface into a /27, which gives you 30
>> useful ips in each range.
>> If you want a larger allocation, you will need to give it its own ip
>> range that has 100 IPs,
>> most likely a /24. So in /etc/config/network, you'd change sw0 from
>> 172.30.42.X netmask 255.255.255.224
>> to (for example) 172.30.43.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
>>
>> and then the individual ranges are managed in /etc/config/dhcp for
>> that interface, where you would change the start option.
>>
>> the cerowrt-devel list is where most questions go. Thanks for trying cerowrt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM, R. <redag2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> **Prefix="172.30.42".
>>>
>>> Finally got a WNDR3800 and installed CeroWRT 3.10.40-5.
>>>
>>> On my previous tinkering with OpenWRT, I was able to reserve 75 DHCP
>>> addresses in the prefix.100+ range. I tried doing the same with Cero
>>> by adding static leases and setting "option start '100'" to the SW00
>>> interface, but that didn't work.
>>>
>>> The devices that are connecting to the router are still given an IP
>>> address other than the one that is assigned to them in the static
>>> leases table.
>>>
>>> Some guidance would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> PS: Unlike what the Installation Guide mentions, the prefix.0,
>>> prefix.64, prefix.96 -- as well as the prefix.129 and prefix.160 do
>>> not display the "secured interfaces".
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cerowrt-users mailing list
>>> Cerowrt-users at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Täht
>>
>> NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article