Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RTouris]

So I have an update here for the progress (?) made so far according to vic0239's suggestions per my interpretation (which cries for improvement to be honest since I had to translate RouterOS into EdgeOS - lol), which doesn't look good. Here's some screenshots showing before and after the modifications made.

As things stand my ER-X is on 192.168.1.1, mask 255.255.255.0, whereas the ZyXEL sits on 192.168.6.254, mask 255.255.255.0.

First off for eth0 which is my WAN on the ER-X I manually added 192.168.6.2/24 into the respective field and it appeared on the interfaces and routing tables. However upon creating either an (a) a static route type interface to 192.168.6.0/24 for eth0 interface (WAN) or (b) a static route type Gateway to 192.168.6.0/24 to next hop address 192.168.6.254 (ZyXEL IP) I still can't access the ZyXEL. In both cases accessing 192.168.6.2 lands me to the ER-X login page.

On a sidenote for the time being I also have an extra router as mentioned above setup on 192.168.6.1 serving wifi and VoIP with a DHCP server on and a pool of 192.168.6.100-110 for the wifi clients.

I'm now officially back to square one, please do let me know how I might go ahead and alter this setup and do bear with me as I'm way over my current skillset with this one

[vic0239]

In both cases accessing 192.168.6.2 lands me to the ER-X login page.
As things stand my ER-X is on 192.168.1.1, mask 255.255.255.0, whereas the ZyXEL sits on 192.168.6.254, mask 255.255.255.0.

Shouldn't the Zyxel be accessed on 192.168.6.254?

[RTouris]

sure, i just get no response from neither 102.268.6.254 (ZyXEL), nor 192.168.6.1 (VoIP router, AP) - just flagging up a peculiar fact given the changes made..

[Alex Atkin UK]

Do they have 192.168.6.2 set as their gateway?

[RTouris]

Do they have 192.168.6.2 set as their gateway?

Hm...to be completely honest i didn't confirm this so chances are that it's not selected as their gateway...Will have to double check on it and report back. Which of the two setups of static routing should i follow though - as tested above that is (a) setting the complete interface of eth0, or (b) setting the sole IP of the ZyXEL as next hop...There was an inconsistency there compared to RouterOS, so I went down both routes - I suppose in the worst case scenario trial & error will show :/

[Alex Atkin UK]

Not sure about all this as I've never done subnet routing, my Zyxel was bridged to the main LAN for simplicity.

If you're using NAT you treat it like a WAN but with a router firewall rule set to ONLY route clients trying to access that subnet or IP via that gateway.  The static route is to tell your router than the thing on the other end IS a gateway to reach that subnet.

I don't have to set a static route in my current configuration as I have a Three 5G router on the other end (so I can connect to it directly for check if port forwards on my Zen line are working okay or troubleshooting if the main router goes poof), so the route is set by DHCP from the 5G router.  I just have the firewall rule to tell it to use that route if a client is accessing an IP address in that subnet.

[RTouris]

Do they have 192.168.6.2 set as their gateway?

A quick update on this. The ZyXEL can't have 192.168.6.2 set as it's gateway since it's in bridge mode and such a variable is not available when setup as such. For the VoIP/WiFi router it is, yet still can't be accessed.

To take a step back and re-evaluate the fact that interface grouping doesn't appear to work at all was my starting point which would make things so much easier and simple...Can I ask @Alex Atkin UK perhaps for some clear'er' instructions as to how he would proceed with the firewall and static route perhaps adapted for this EdgeOS use-case?

[Alex Atkin UK]

As I recall when I was using the Zyxel on pfSense, I avoided the whole issue by using the two-port solution and using spare ports on my box as part of the LAN bridge.  As I had two modems it still only took one extra port on the router, as I plugged the LAN side of the second modem into a LAN port on the first.

In your case it seems like plugging the LAN side of the modem into the second router solves the problem as it becomes bridged to the LAN then?  Though you could do this via the ER-X too as mentioned before, you'd need to bridge the LAN to one of the spare ports.

That's one of the reasons I moved to the Home Hubs with OpenWRT, as there I created a VLAN on the WAN port that I bridged to the LAN interface.  On pfSense I just did the same.  Bonus, any low traffic devices could use the modems spare LAN ports to connect to the LAN.

So to summarise on the WAN interface I had untagged for the PPPoE and a tagged VLAN bridged to the main LAN.

As I understand it what others did to get around this was having the WAN and LAN on the same untagged interface, but I don't like that on the principle that LAN broadcasts might leak down the WAN bridge onto the OR network, even though that traffic is likely dropped the other end.