Great.
Yes WAN 1 and 3 are in the same subnet.
I'm completely new to code. I appreciate your help but it seems you assume that everyone has a specific amount of as knowledge. I do not. I can appreciate not getting your head wrapped around this, I can't get my head wrapped around this gui/cli.
I was able to do ALL of these things simply in gui with other devices there just happened to be a throughput issue with the added features and rules over time.
What I'm trying to achieve is simple. Load balance wan 1 and 2, 1 is static 2 is dhcp, both from seperate companies. This will balance traffic in/out eth7=192.168.99.0/24.
I need some ports open for basic access remotely.
This device,192.168.99.10, should only be accessible at wan 1 for ports:
8080-8082
32400
19150
Also, since this subnet will serve as the general network I would more than likely need upnp on. So far everything I've done has been wrong so....
Then wan 3 which is a 2nd static from same company as wan 1 will be unbalanced and ALL traffic from wan3 would go to eth6 =192.168.98.2 with 0-65535 open. Or DMZ. This device is another router that will handle the faming traffic.
I do not u der stand how/why this is so difficult. It's like taking 5 steps backwards. What I'm trying to achieve is simple. So why is it so difficult in the edgemax line?
Confusing language in gui. Coding to work. It seems most of the use able items in gui are only as good as the code you know to make them work right. Like the gui is only half of what you need.
For instance, why is it an option to add only one wan eth to several lan eth for port forwarding in gui? I agree it's limiting and it sucks but if that's the only option then how is it wrong?
Why do I have an option to add WANs to a laid balance group in a wizard,gui, yet later adding a seperate static wan I have to decipher code, literally, to keep that new wan from Tx/Rx packets over a wan inside the load balance group?
So yea, I understand not getting your head wrapped around it. Cause it makes no sense.
Between all of this AND you incorrectly telling me before that all forms of QoS disable offloading, I think I'm getting the run around.
Yes WAN 1 and 3 are in the same subnet.
I'm completely new to code. I appreciate your help but it seems you assume that everyone has a specific amount of as knowledge. I do not. I can appreciate not getting your head wrapped around this, I can't get my head wrapped around this gui/cli.
I was able to do ALL of these things simply in gui with other devices there just happened to be a throughput issue with the added features and rules over time.
What I'm trying to achieve is simple. Load balance wan 1 and 2, 1 is static 2 is dhcp, both from seperate companies. This will balance traffic in/out eth7=192.168.99.0/24.
I need some ports open for basic access remotely.
This device,192.168.99.10, should only be accessible at wan 1 for ports:
8080-8082
32400
19150
Also, since this subnet will serve as the general network I would more than likely need upnp on. So far everything I've done has been wrong so....
Then wan 3 which is a 2nd static from same company as wan 1 will be unbalanced and ALL traffic from wan3 would go to eth6 =192.168.98.2 with 0-65535 open. Or DMZ. This device is another router that will handle the faming traffic.
I do not u der stand how/why this is so difficult. It's like taking 5 steps backwards. What I'm trying to achieve is simple. So why is it so difficult in the edgemax line?
Confusing language in gui. Coding to work. It seems most of the use able items in gui are only as good as the code you know to make them work right. Like the gui is only half of what you need.
For instance, why is it an option to add only one wan eth to several lan eth for port forwarding in gui? I agree it's limiting and it sucks but if that's the only option then how is it wrong?
Why do I have an option to add WANs to a laid balance group in a wizard,gui, yet later adding a seperate static wan I have to decipher code, literally, to keep that new wan from Tx/Rx packets over a wan inside the load balance group?
So yea, I understand not getting your head wrapped around it. Cause it makes no sense.
Between all of this AND you incorrectly telling me before that all forms of QoS disable offloading, I think I'm getting the run around.