[Cerowrt-devel] Isn't right with the configuration script
Eric S. Johansson
esj at eggo.org
Tue Sep 23 19:03:44 EDT 2014
On 9/23/2014 6:56 AM, Rich Brown wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>> I changed the internal subnet and it looks like everything changes correctly but what happens is the interface comes up and I can ping it. I see IPv6 traffic coming from it (I believe) but there's no IPv4 response .I should see if I can set up my Linux machine as IPv6 and see if I can access any of the services there. IPv6 is new terrain for me so helpful pointers would be quite welcome.
>>
>> I would also appreciate any pointers to documentation explaining why all the little subnets and why so many network interfaces.
> This is mostly to isolate various kinds of traffic so the slowest (2.4GHz abg) doesn't interfere with 5GHz wireless or 100mbps Ethernet. There's more info at:
make more sense. on my "stock" cerowrt box my My routing table looks
like below. I don't get the line for 172.3.42.0/24 with the flag of '1'
and an asterisk for the interface.
root at mars:~# netstat -nr
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
0.0.0.0 73.38.246.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
ge00
73.38.246.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0
ge00
172.30.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0
se00
172.30.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 ! 0 0 0 *
172.30.42.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0
sw00
172.30.42.96 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0
sw10
root at mars:~#
When I turn on the VPN, I get:
root at mars:~# netstat -nr
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
0.0.0.0 73.38.246.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
ge00
10.42.66.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.1.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.2.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.3.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.4.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.5.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.6.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.7.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.8.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.9.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.10.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.11.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.12.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.13.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.14.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.43.15.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.199.188.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
10.199.188.193 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
tun0
73.38.246.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0
ge00
172.30.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0
se00
172.30.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 ! 0 0 0 *
172.30.42.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0
sw00
172.30.42.96 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0
sw10
192.168.9.0 10.199.188.193 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
tun0
Yes, my work network has lots and lots of test subnets.
Since I can hit any of my work networks from the 3800 but not from my
lan, I suspect I'm missing some firewall rules.
one important question: Is there a way to define a named constant or
indirect reference to value in UCI instead of the literal.
dhcp: option ip '172.30.42.1'
network: option 'ipaddr' '172.30.42.1'
becomes
dhcp: option ip @internal_gateway
network: option 'ipaddr' @internal_gateway
and internal_gateway is defined on one place
More information about the Cerowrt-devel
mailing list