I clicked on the 'escalate' button in your OP to help with that.
Creating a Feature Request wouldn't hurt - those do get reviewed periodically by UBNT, and it would give another option for others to indicate interest/need by giving that post an upvote (a "kudos"). FRs created that way won't get lost in the rest of the support-related threads in this forum. Providing a reference in that FR to this thread might not be a bad idea, as well as providing a link to the FR in this thread.
I'm not using auto discovery, I'm manually trying to connect and ping all the systems. The server on eth1 can ping all systems on the different vlans (minus guest of course), but the vlans can't ping or access the server (even on 80 or 443). Guest can't ping or manually access the printers (via web interface or manual hardware add); I havehave the router firewall rules and thethe AP both set to allow her access. So it would seem to be something with the router if eth1 can access others but others can't access server.
We're using a cloud hosted RADIUS server on a static IP.
For sites with one static IP, this works amazingly well. However, when having setup EdgeRouters using the Load Balance wizard, the routing table seems to be giving me grief.
I've added a static interface route, however this seems to be being ignored and traffic destined for the RADIUS server goes out via both wans. Worst case we have a site using an ER8Pro with 5 WAN connections and it's going nuts.
Should I have to add this static route to each routing table for each WAN?
Also, when a connection fails, the route doesn't appear to be updating and traffic is just being lost. I've setup the option to ping 1.1.1.1 with failures / succuesses for each WAN. Doesn't appear to have made any difference. Don't mean to sound like a spoilt child, the term Wizard seems to have been abused here!!
All of our connections are either FTTP or FTTC PPPoE
Running 1.10.9
Routes show up as Kernel.
Very frustrating scenario. Any help wildly appreciated.
Good day All,
I did as 16again suggested and I have configured the device for igmp-proxy and it looks like I am getting closer. I say this, as the "show ip multicase mfc" and "show ip multicase interface" show multicast packets from the interfaces. However, the multicast packets are not been received by the respective computers. Upon review of the other support requests I see that I may need to set firewall rules to properly route the packets. Sadly, looking at the firewall options I am unclear how to do this. Can someone provide some guidance as to how I can set these firewall rules? The way I have configured the ER-X is as follows:
eth0: WAN (set to internet)
eth1: WAN (set to static IP of 192.168.50.250)
eth2-eth4: LAN with DHCP server (192.168.0.0/24, gateway eth0)
I am trying to allow multicast packets to go to/from the LAN (192.168.0.0/24) to the 192.168.50.x network.
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Sam
Hi
Welcome to the Community! Sorry to hear you're having troubles. Do you recall which version of firmware the ER-X was on? You may be able to connect to the device using the SSH recovery method highlighted in this KB article.
Best regards,
Hi
i have downloaded the SSH tool and typed in the Host ip of 192.168.1.1 and says can't connect. i have changed my Nic tp 192.168.1.2 and tried again but still nothing? im not to savvy on the programming side so please bare with me.
Hi,
I have a layer 2 WISP AirMax network. It's CURRENTLY flat - with NAT & DHCP /22 server at the main WAN entry router ERX #1 comprising 2 x FTTP WAN circuits with Load Sharing (built using the wizard) . Clearly not a great design, but that's just how it evolved. Time to uplift it & segregate. Goals are:-
I'd be keen to hear views on this approach.
Does this seem easily achievable with EdgeRouter?
Is there an easy way of routing VLAN's on each side of a router? Or am I right in thinking that the routing is done by default & that I've got quite a few firewall rules to write at both ERX #1 & ERX #2.
Any advice welcome & appreciated.
Hi
Welcome to the Community! Try setting the Port Forwarding lan-interface to br0, currently, it's eth1.
Best regards,
This would seem to be an inordinate amount of power supply failures in a short duration of service. I would hope the company is going to stand behind this as they are being shipped along with their products. Unacceptable.
I have not confirmed but I am rather certain I have the exact same failure myself. Further testing to confirm today.
Attempt to connect using the IPv6 link-local address.
Best regards,
Going to sound really stupid here but dont know how to?
Kind regards
Good day All,
I am getting closer...
So... For the firewall rules I have separated the default Rule that combined my two WAN ports. Here I configued a separte rulw for my 2nd WAN port to allow all inbound traffic. This works great and now I am able to receive multicast packets to my local LAN and my application! The only issue remaining is how to forward Multicast packets from the LAN to the 2nd WAN port (eth1). Does anyone have any ideas I can try?
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Sam
Hi
Depending on your host (Windows/MacOS), the steps are in the article I linked.
Best regards,
Hello,
Thank you for your answer.
But, in that answer the broadcast is simply relayed, port is unchanged. I also want to change the destination port.
This answer doesn't apply to my case.
Best Regards
5 dNAT rules will take care of required port translation.
I doubt you can send it to IP broadcast address.
Try another used IP address in the LAN (one ofor every LAN), and add static ARP entries for those addresses, pointing towards layer2 broadcast address ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
Trick above works for WOL
0.0.0.0/24 is NOT a default route.
It only matches addresses starting with a 0....which aren't used on the internet.
You get such a route when running openvpn.
First of all, use "lb-local disable", so local generated packets aren't load balanced.
Then you can add route in main table, so a single route is favoured for /32 radius host. (on pppoe, interface routes are fine, on ethernet, use next-hop address instead)
still having no luck
