Menu
▾
▴
astlinux-users — AstLinux Users Mailing List
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(20) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 |
Jan
(91) |
Feb
(111) |
Mar
(226) |
Apr
(65) |
May
(197) |
Jun
(202) |
Jul
(92) |
Aug
(87) |
Sep
(120) |
Oct
(133) |
Nov
(89) |
Dec
(155) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(251) |
Feb
(136) |
Mar
(174) |
Apr
(149) |
May
(56) |
Jun
(32) |
Jul
(36) |
Aug
(171) |
Sep
(245) |
Oct
(244) |
Nov
(218) |
Dec
(272) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(113) |
Feb
(119) |
Mar
(192) |
Apr
(117) |
May
(93) |
Jun
(46) |
Jul
(80) |
Aug
(54) |
Sep
(109) |
Oct
(70) |
Nov
(145) |
Dec
(110) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(137) |
Feb
(87) |
Mar
(45) |
Apr
(157) |
May
(58) |
Jun
(99) |
Jul
(188) |
Aug
(136) |
Sep
(101) |
Oct
(100) |
Nov
(61) |
Dec
(60) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(84) |
Feb
(43) |
Mar
(70) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(69) |
Jun
(28) |
Jul
(43) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(151) |
Oct
(120) |
Nov
(84) |
Dec
(101) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(119) |
Feb
(82) |
Mar
(70) |
Apr
(115) |
May
(66) |
Jun
(131) |
Jul
(70) |
Aug
(65) |
Sep
(66) |
Oct
(86) |
Nov
(197) |
Dec
(81) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(48) |
Mar
(32) |
Apr
(68) |
May
(98) |
Jun
(59) |
Jul
(41) |
Aug
(52) |
Sep
(42) |
Oct
(37) |
Nov
(10) |
Dec
(27) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(61) |
Feb
(34) |
Mar
(30) |
Apr
(52) |
May
(45) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(28) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(39) |
Oct
(69) |
Nov
(55) |
Dec
(19) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(21) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(14) |
May
(30) |
Jun
(51) |
Jul
(31) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(29) |
Oct
(15) |
Nov
(24) |
Dec
(16) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(62) |
Feb
(76) |
Mar
(30) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(46) |
Jun
(62) |
Jul
(21) |
Aug
(49) |
Sep
(67) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
(38) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(12) |
Mar
(69) |
Apr
(59) |
May
(54) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(76) |
Aug
(82) |
Sep
(92) |
Oct
(51) |
Nov
(32) |
Dec
(30) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(22) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(34) |
Apr
(35) |
May
(37) |
Jun
(21) |
Jul
(69) |
Aug
(55) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(67) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(19) |
Feb
(12) |
Mar
(15) |
Apr
(19) |
May
|
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(25) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(10) |
Dec
(14) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(22) |
Feb
(20) |
Mar
(36) |
Apr
(40) |
May
(52) |
Jun
(35) |
Jul
(21) |
Aug
(32) |
Sep
(71) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(11) |
Dec
(16) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(16) |
Feb
(21) |
Mar
(21) |
Apr
(27) |
May
(17) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(22) |
Sep
(23) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(11) |
Dec
(28) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(23) |
Feb
(18) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(15) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
(11) |
Dec
(10) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(11) |
Apr
(13) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(30) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(15) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(25) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2024 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(10) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(15) |
| 2025 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: David K. <da...@ke...> - 2019-07-26 15:30:38
|
Hi Lonnie. Yes, crontab -l shows what I expect... pbx ~ # crontab -l ## ## logrotate - Do not remove, comment-out to disable 00 04 * * * /usr/sbin/logrotate /etc/logrotate.conf >/dev/null 2>&1 ## ## Fossil daily auto-commit - Do not remove, un-comment to enable 55 23 * * * /usr/bin/fossil-commit >/dev/null 2>&1 <cut off the rest> and yes /ver/spool/cron/crontabs is symlinked over to /mnt/kd. And the crond process is running... Jul 26 09:55:17 pbx cron.info crond[1135]: crond (busybox 1.30.1) started, log level 8 But nothing is executing overnight ! Thanks David On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:39 AM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...> wrote: > Hi David, > > Busybox crond uses "/var/spool/cron/crontabs" > -- > # ls -l /var/spool/cron/crontabs > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jul 23 17:42 > /var/spool/cron/crontabs -> /mnt/kd/crontabs > -- > which is (should be) symlinked to "/mnt/kd/crontabs" > -- > # ls -l /mnt/kd/crontabs > total 4 > -rw------- 1 root root 358 Oct 29 2017 root > -- > > Also see if "crontab -l" shows what you expect. > > BTW, Thanks, I did not know "/etc/cron.d" was being installed, we should > remove that. > > Lonnie > > > > > On Jul 26, 2019, at 9:01 AM, David Kerr <da...@ke...> wrote: > > > > I just noticed since moving to a new system that my cron jobs are not > running. The configuration of the new system was established by doing a > "restore basic configuration" from the system tab. I cannot figure out why > it is not working. > > > > crond is running (ps | grep "crond") and startup is logged in syslog. > > /var/spool/cron/crontabs exists, is link to... > > /mnt/kd/crontabs > > inside that is "root" which is file placed there by the restore > configuration. It has permissions 600 > > /etc/cron.d also exists > > inside that is "e2scrub_all" which has permissions 644 > > > > I tried changing permissions on "root" to 644 but that made no > difference. > > > > What am I missing? > > > > Thanks > > David > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > |
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-26 14:39:46
|
Hi David, Busybox crond uses "/var/spool/cron/crontabs" -- # ls -l /var/spool/cron/crontabs lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jul 23 17:42 /var/spool/cron/crontabs -> /mnt/kd/crontabs -- which is (should be) symlinked to "/mnt/kd/crontabs" -- # ls -l /mnt/kd/crontabs total 4 -rw------- 1 root root 358 Oct 29 2017 root -- Also see if "crontab -l" shows what you expect. BTW, Thanks, I did not know "/etc/cron.d" was being installed, we should remove that. Lonnie > On Jul 26, 2019, at 9:01 AM, David Kerr <da...@ke...> wrote: > > I just noticed since moving to a new system that my cron jobs are not running. The configuration of the new system was established by doing a "restore basic configuration" from the system tab. I cannot figure out why it is not working. > > crond is running (ps | grep "crond") and startup is logged in syslog. > /var/spool/cron/crontabs exists, is link to... > /mnt/kd/crontabs > inside that is "root" which is file placed there by the restore configuration. It has permissions 600 > /etc/cron.d also exists > inside that is "e2scrub_all" which has permissions 644 > > I tried changing permissions on "root" to 644 but that made no difference. > > What am I missing? > > Thanks > David > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: David K. <da...@ke...> - 2019-07-26 14:01:59
|
I just noticed since moving to a new system that my cron jobs are not running. The configuration of the new system was established by doing a "restore basic configuration" from the system tab. I cannot figure out why it is not working. crond is running (ps | grep "crond") and startup is logged in syslog. /var/spool/cron/crontabs exists, is link to... /mnt/kd/crontabs inside that is "root" which is file placed there by the restore configuration. It has permissions 600 /etc/cron.d also exists inside that is "e2scrub_all" which has permissions 644 I tried changing permissions on "root" to 644 but that made no difference. What am I missing? Thanks David |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-23 23:17:12
|
Thanks David. I will let you know. Regards Michael Knill From: David Kerr <da...@ke...> Reply to: AstLinux List <ast...@li...> Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 9:12 am To: AstLinux List <ast...@li...> Subject: Re: [Astlinux-users] Pinging the failover interface I have implemented a solution to this on my astlinux box such that replies to incoming traffic on my failover interface are sent back out over that interface. The specific reason I have this is so that I can access the astlinux web interface at either pbx.myurl.tld and failover.myurl.tld. My failover host forwards traffic on a specific port over the wireguard VPN that connects my main system and the failover gateway. They way it is done is to use firewall marks (fwmark) to mark traffic coming in on that interface, and a combination of iptables, ip rule and ip route. I have it scripted so that it is setup whenever the wireguard link is brought up and survives firewall restarts. Its been a while but I can go figure out what parts to extract from my scripts and share if there is interest. David On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:50 PM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...<mailto:li...@lo...>> wrote: > ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1 This route will be removed anytime PPPoE is restarted. Otherwise ... test and test again :-) Lonnie > On Jul 23, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...<mailto:mic...@ip...>> wrote: > > Whoops I missed that date sorry. I need to be more observant. Although I assume its still the same. > No I don't have a path over WG and my Zabbix server pings both interfaces so I cant put in a static route. > > I could however just set up policy routing for the Zabbix server so it doesn't break anything else e.g.: > ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1 > ip route add <Zabbix Address> dev eth3 tab 2 > ip rule add from <ppp0 IP Address>/32 tab 1 priority 500 > ip rule add from <eth3 IP Address>/32 tab 2 priority 600 > > What do you think? > > Regards > Michael Knill > > On 24/7/19, 7:34 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...<mailto:li...@lo...>> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 23, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...<mailto:mic...@ip...>> wrote: >> >> Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a while. >> So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received. >> https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291 >> >> What do you think? > > That is a 15 year old article, while it looks mostly correct. > > Policy routing seems like overkill for your issue. > > Is there a path over WireGuard ? possibly fping the WG interface to see if the path is working ? > > Or add a static route ? > > Lonnie > > > > >> >> Regards >> Michael Knill >> >> On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...<mailto:li...@lo...>> wrote: >> >>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. >> >> Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost. >> >> Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet. >> >> Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story. >> >> Lonnie >> >> >> >>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...<mailto:mic...@ip...>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi group >>> >>> Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway. >>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. >>> >>> Regards >>> Michael Knill >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Astlinux-users mailing list >>> Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >>> >>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. _______________________________________________ Astlinux-users mailing list Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. |
|
From: David K. <da...@ke...> - 2019-07-23 23:12:16
|
I have implemented a solution to this on my astlinux box such that replies to incoming traffic on my failover interface are sent back out over that interface. The specific reason I have this is so that I can access the astlinux web interface at either pbx.myurl.tld and failover.myurl.tld. My failover host forwards traffic on a specific port over the wireguard VPN that connects my main system and the failover gateway. They way it is done is to use firewall marks (fwmark) to mark traffic coming in on that interface, and a combination of iptables, ip rule and ip route. I have it scripted so that it is setup whenever the wireguard link is brought up and survives firewall restarts. Its been a while but I can go figure out what parts to extract from my scripts and share if there is interest. David On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:50 PM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...> wrote: > > ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1 > > This route will be removed anytime PPPoE is restarted. > > Otherwise ... test and test again :-) > > Lonnie > > > > > On Jul 23, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Michael Knill < > mic...@ip...> wrote: > > > > Whoops I missed that date sorry. I need to be more observant. Although I > assume its still the same. > > No I don't have a path over WG and my Zabbix server pings both > interfaces so I cant put in a static route. > > > > I could however just set up policy routing for the Zabbix server so it > doesn't break anything else e.g.: > > ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1 > > ip route add <Zabbix Address> dev eth3 tab 2 > > ip rule add from <ppp0 IP Address>/32 tab 1 priority 500 > > ip rule add from <eth3 IP Address>/32 tab 2 priority 600 > > > > What do you think? > > > > Regards > > Michael Knill > > > > On 24/7/19, 7:34 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jul 23, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Michael Knill < > mic...@ip...> wrote: > >> > >> Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a > while. > >> So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from > this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received. > >> https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291 > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > That is a 15 year old article, while it looks mostly correct. > > > > Policy routing seems like overkill for your issue. > > > > Is there a path over WireGuard ? possibly fping the WG interface to > see if the path is working ? > > > > Or add a static route ? > > > > Lonnie > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Regards > >> Michael Knill > >> > >> On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> > wrote: > >> > >>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface > so it will not work. > >> > >> Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet > is lost. > >> > >> Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return > packet. > >> > >> Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story. > >> > >> Lonnie > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill < > mic...@ip...> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi group > >>> > >>> Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover > Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it > used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the > secondary WAN gateway. > >>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface > so it will not work. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Michael Knill > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Astlinux-users mailing list > >>> Ast...@li... > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >>> > >>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Astlinux-users mailing list > >> Ast...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >> > >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Astlinux-users mailing list > >> Ast...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >> > >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-23 23:08:15
|
Thanks Lonnie
Although this looks interesting, I still have a problem with monitoring a 4G connection and other scenarios etc. so I will probably use WG VPN's to Management servers for monitoring.
Thanks for your help once again.
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/7/19, 8:50 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
> ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1
This route will be removed anytime PPPoE is restarted.
Otherwise ... test and test again :-)
Lonnie
> On Jul 23, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>
> Whoops I missed that date sorry. I need to be more observant. Although I assume its still the same.
> No I don't have a path over WG and my Zabbix server pings both interfaces so I cant put in a static route.
>
> I could however just set up policy routing for the Zabbix server so it doesn't break anything else e.g.:
> ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1
> ip route add <Zabbix Address> dev eth3 tab 2
> ip rule add from <ppp0 IP Address>/32 tab 1 priority 500
> ip rule add from <eth3 IP Address>/32 tab 2 priority 600
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards
> Michael Knill
>
> On 24/7/19, 7:34 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a while.
>> So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received.
>> https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> That is a 15 year old article, while it looks mostly correct.
>
> Policy routing seems like overkill for your issue.
>
> Is there a path over WireGuard ? possibly fping the WG interface to see if the path is working ?
>
> Or add a static route ?
>
> Lonnie
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Knill
>>
>> On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
>>
>>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work.
>>
>> Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost.
>>
>> Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet.
>>
>> Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story.
>>
>> Lonnie
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi group
>>>
>>> Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway.
>>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Knill
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Astlinux-users mailing list
>>> Ast...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>>>
>>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Astlinux-users mailing list
>> Ast...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>>
>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Astlinux-users mailing list
>> Ast...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>>
>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
_______________________________________________
Astlinux-users mailing list
Ast...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
|
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-23 22:50:05
|
> ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1 This route will be removed anytime PPPoE is restarted. Otherwise ... test and test again :-) Lonnie > On Jul 23, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Whoops I missed that date sorry. I need to be more observant. Although I assume its still the same. > No I don't have a path over WG and my Zabbix server pings both interfaces so I cant put in a static route. > > I could however just set up policy routing for the Zabbix server so it doesn't break anything else e.g.: > ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1 > ip route add <Zabbix Address> dev eth3 tab 2 > ip rule add from <ppp0 IP Address>/32 tab 1 priority 500 > ip rule add from <eth3 IP Address>/32 tab 2 priority 600 > > What do you think? > > Regards > Michael Knill > > On 24/7/19, 7:34 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 23, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: >> >> Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a while. >> So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received. >> https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291 >> >> What do you think? > > That is a 15 year old article, while it looks mostly correct. > > Policy routing seems like overkill for your issue. > > Is there a path over WireGuard ? possibly fping the WG interface to see if the path is working ? > > Or add a static route ? > > Lonnie > > > > >> >> Regards >> Michael Knill >> >> On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: >> >>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. >> >> Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost. >> >> Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet. >> >> Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story. >> >> Lonnie >> >> >> >>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: >>> >>> Hi group >>> >>> Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway. >>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. >>> >>> Regards >>> Michael Knill >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Astlinux-users mailing list >>> Ast...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >>> >>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-23 22:43:55
|
Whoops I missed that date sorry. I need to be more observant. Although I assume its still the same.
No I don't have a path over WG and my Zabbix server pings both interfaces so I cant put in a static route.
I could however just set up policy routing for the Zabbix server so it doesn't break anything else e.g.:
ip route add <Zabbix IP Address> dev ppp0 tab 1
ip route add <Zabbix Address> dev eth3 tab 2
ip rule add from <ppp0 IP Address>/32 tab 1 priority 500
ip rule add from <eth3 IP Address>/32 tab 2 priority 600
What do you think?
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/7/19, 7:34 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>
> Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a while.
> So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received.
> https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291
>
> What do you think?
That is a 15 year old article, while it looks mostly correct.
Policy routing seems like overkill for your issue.
Is there a path over WireGuard ? possibly fping the WG interface to see if the path is working ?
Or add a static route ?
Lonnie
>
> Regards
> Michael Knill
>
> On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
>
>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work.
>
> Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost.
>
> Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet.
>
> Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story.
>
> Lonnie
>
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi group
>>
>> Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway.
>> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Knill
>> _______________________________________________
>> Astlinux-users mailing list
>> Ast...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>>
>> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
_______________________________________________
Astlinux-users mailing list
Ast...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
|
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-23 21:34:00
|
> On Jul 23, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a while. > So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received. > https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291 > > What do you think? That is a 15 year old article, while it looks mostly correct. Policy routing seems like overkill for your issue. Is there a path over WireGuard ? possibly fping the WG interface to see if the path is working ? Or add a static route ? Lonnie > > Regards > Michael Knill > > On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > >> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. > > Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost. > > Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet. > > Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story. > > Lonnie > > > >> On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: >> >> Hi group >> >> Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway. >> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. >> >> Regards >> Michael Knill >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-23 21:24:41
|
Yes I gathered that was the case. Hmm wonder why it was working for a while. So it doesn't seem too difficult to set up policy based routing from this article which sends traffic out the interface it was received. https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7291 What do you think? Regards Michael Knill On 24/7/19, 7:12 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost. Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet. Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story. Lonnie > On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Hi group > > Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway. > My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. > > Regards > Michael Knill > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... _______________________________________________ Astlinux-users mailing list Ast...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-23 21:11:51
|
> My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. Exactly. If there is not a return route to your source IP the packet is lost. Or if over WireGuard, a too narrow AllowedIPs to allow the return packet. Using "ip r" at each end should tell the story. Lonnie > On Jul 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Hi group > > Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway. > My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. > > Regards > Michael Knill > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-23 20:59:01
|
Hi group Forgive my ignorance but should I be able to ping the failover Astlinux interface if the primary is up? I cant for one of my sites but it used to work for some reason. The link seems fine and I can ping the secondary WAN gateway. My assumption is that the reply will route out the primary interface so it will not work. Regards Michael Knill |
|
From: David K. <da...@ke...> - 2019-07-09 08:50:14
|
Duh. thanks, I didn't register that the IP address was needed as well. David On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:48 PM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...> wrote: > Hi David, > > Usage: wol-host [options...] ipv4_addr|name > > so... > > wol-host --mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff ipv4_addr > > The ipv4_addr is needed to determine the interface the MAC is off of, as > well as a fping target. > > BTW, "wol-host" is a shell script ... /usr/sbin/wol-host, so you can take > a look. > > Also, the MAC address, when not defined, is attempted to to be associated > with the ipv4_addr or name using > -- /mnt/kd/rc.conf.d/gui.dnshosts.conf > -- /var/db/dnsmasq.leases > -- /etc/ethers > > Lonnie > > > > On Jul 8, 2019, at 7:32 PM, David Kerr <da...@ke...> wrote: > > > > What is the correct syntax for manually passing in a mac address to > wol-host command? If I enter: > > wol-host --mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff > > All I get is the help text. > > > > Thanks > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > |
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-09 00:48:05
|
Hi David, Usage: wol-host [options...] ipv4_addr|name so... wol-host --mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff ipv4_addr The ipv4_addr is needed to determine the interface the MAC is off of, as well as a fping target. BTW, "wol-host" is a shell script ... /usr/sbin/wol-host, so you can take a look. Also, the MAC address, when not defined, is attempted to to be associated with the ipv4_addr or name using -- /mnt/kd/rc.conf.d/gui.dnshosts.conf -- /var/db/dnsmasq.leases -- /etc/ethers Lonnie > On Jul 8, 2019, at 7:32 PM, David Kerr <da...@ke...> wrote: > > What is the correct syntax for manually passing in a mac address to wol-host command? If I enter: > wol-host --mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff > All I get is the help text. > > Thanks > David > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: David K. <da...@ke...> - 2019-07-09 00:33:14
|
What is the correct syntax for manually passing in a mac address to wol-host command? If I enter: wol-host --mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff All I get is the help text. Thanks David |
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-06 13:19:08
|
Announcing AstLinux Release: 1.3.6 More Info: AstLinux Project https://www.astlinux-project.org/ AstLinux 1.3.6 Highlights: * Asterisk Versions: 13.23.1, 13.27.0, 16.4.0 * Upgrade to Linux Kernel 3.16.69, including the RUNNIX bootloader, security and bug fixes * busybox, major version bump to 1.30.1, security and bug fixes * ne, new package, version 3.1.2, the nice editor, alternative to nano, including syntax highlighting * Asterisk 11.x is no longer included, officially EOL 2017-10-25 * Asterisk '13se' (stable edition) version 13.23.1 is included, older than latest Asterisk 13.x version but more tested, built --without-pjproject * Asterisk 16.x is now included in the Install ISO and "ast16-firmware-1.x" repository * Asterisk CDR's, when a Dial() has a B() option 'Return(IgnoreNoAnswerCDR)' ignore unanswered events * WireGuard VPN, latest development snapshot during its incorporation into the mainline Linux Kernel * Web Interface, Network, Edit tabs, add "Reload WireGuard VPN" support to apply peer changes/additions/deletions * Web Interface, Status tab, add "ChangeLog" link to display changes since AstLinux 1.2.0 using local file storage * Package upgrades providing important security and bug fixes Full ChangeLog: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/astlinux-project/astlinux/1.3.6/docs/ChangeLog.txt All users are encouraged to upgrade. Previous Asterisk 11.x users are encouraged to switch to the new Asterisk '13se' (stable edition). Some configuration changes will be needed, though minimal. AstLinux Team |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-01 23:27:00
|
Sure thing. I will order some and let you know
Regards
Michael Knill
On 2/7/19, 7:40 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
Hi Michael,
I have not personally used an "apu4c2" (APU2 NIC x4) but expect it to work fine.
The "apu4c2" has been around long enough to get any production board tweaks done if needed.
BTW, we "guessed" at the system-vendor string for the "apu4c2", it should appear as:
Hardware: PC Engines APU2 NIC x4
Let us know if it doesn't.
Lonnie
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>
> Hi Group
>
> https://www.pcengines.ch/apu4c2.htm
>
> I'm looking to jump to from the apu2d2 to the apu4c2 to give me an extra Ethernet port.
> From looking at the specs there doesn't seem to be anything different so Astlinux should work fine with the APU4. Is this correct? Any bad experiences with the APU4?
>
> Regards
> Michael Knill
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
_______________________________________________
Astlinux-users mailing list
Ast...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
|
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-07-01 21:39:53
|
Hi Michael, I have not personally used an "apu4c2" (APU2 NIC x4) but expect it to work fine. The "apu4c2" has been around long enough to get any production board tweaks done if needed. BTW, we "guessed" at the system-vendor string for the "apu4c2", it should appear as: Hardware: PC Engines APU2 NIC x4 Let us know if it doesn't. Lonnie > On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Hi Group > > https://www.pcengines.ch/apu4c2.htm > > I'm looking to jump to from the apu2d2 to the apu4c2 to give me an extra Ethernet port. > From looking at the specs there doesn't seem to be anything different so Astlinux should work fine with the APU4. Is this correct? Any bad experiences with the APU4? > > Regards > Michael Knill > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-07-01 09:30:23
|
Hi Group https://www.pcengines.ch/apu4c2.htm I'm looking to jump to from the apu2d2 to the apu4c2 to give me an extra Ethernet port. From looking at the specs there doesn't seem to be anything different so Astlinux should work fine with the APU4. Is this correct? Any bad experiences with the APU4? Regards Michael Knill |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-06-24 00:44:26
|
The practical use for me is that the firewall I'm replacing has it configured and so I assume there may be some devices statically addressed to use the secondary gateway address. When I am onsite next I will test out those questions you asked. Regards Michael Knill From: David Kerr <da...@ke...> Reply-To: AstLinux List <ast...@li...> Date: Monday, 24 June 2019 at 8:16 am To: AstLinux List <ast...@li...> Subject: Re: [Astlinux-users] Secondary IP Address on LAN interface How does this work? If my INTIF has both 192.168.168.1 and 192.168.168.254 then I assume that any device on the local LAN could chose to connect to either of these IP addresses and all would be well. So any device on the LAN could ping to either .1 or .254 and get a reply. Am I correct in thinking that Astlinux would "reply" from the address that was used... so if I go to the web interface at 192.168.168.254 then Astlinux will reply from that and not from 192.168.168.1, or if I ping .254 then the reply will come from .254. What about a request initiated from Astlinux to an internal LAN device... say ping 192.168.168.99 from Astlinux... will that come from .1 or .254? Can it be specified? And would I even care? Just wondering what the practical uses of this are. Thanks David On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 5:40 PM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...<mailto:li...@lo...>> wrote: > Is this ok? Yes, that should work. Lonnie > On Jun 23, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...<mailto:mic...@ip...>> wrote: > > Sorry Lonnie > It would be another address in the same subnet as the address on the interface. > E.g. 192.168.168.254/24<http://192.168.168.254/24> and adding via ip a command 192.168.168.1/24<http://192.168.168.1/24>. > > Is this ok? > > Regards > Michael Knill > > On 24/6/19, 7:30 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...<mailto:li...@lo...>> wrote: > >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > > You might have firewall issues doing that. > > Best practice is to have only one subnet off an interface. > > If a /24 won't do possibly a /22 will. The 'netcalc' command in AstLinux can be helpful. > > Lonnie > > > >> On Jun 23, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...<mailto:mic...@ip...>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Lonnie >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. >> >> Regards >> Michael Knill >> >> On 23/6/19, 11:49 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...<mailto:li...@lo...>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...<mailto:mic...@ip...>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Group >>> >>> I know there is EXTIP_ALIAS for WAN interfaces but how would I put on a secondary IP Address for a LAN interface? >>> Do I need to use ‘ip addr add’ in rc.elocal? >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> Yes, rc.elocal would be the way to do that. >> >> I assume you are talking about adding a /32 . >> >> Lonnie >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. _______________________________________________ Astlinux-users mailing list Ast...@li...<mailto:Ast...@li...> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr...<mailto:pa...@kr...>. |
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-06-23 22:41:09
|
Hi David, Good thoughts, I don't see a reason you would want to do this except for legacy migration or such. But your network understanding of this topic seems correct to me. > What about a request initiated from Astlinux to an internal LAN device... say ping 192.168.168.99 from Astlinux... will that come from .1 or .254? Can it be specified? And would I even care? I think you can define a route with a source address, but without that probably the first occurring in "ip a" would be used. Lonnie > On Jun 23, 2019, at 5:15 PM, David Kerr <da...@ke...> wrote: > > How does this work? > > If my INTIF has both 192.168.168.1 and 192.168.168.254 then I assume that any device on the local LAN could chose to connect to either of these IP addresses and all would be well. So any device on the LAN could ping to either .1 or .254 and get a reply. Am I correct in thinking that Astlinux would "reply" from the address that was used... so if I go to the web interface at 192.168.168.254 then Astlinux will reply from that and not from 192.168.168.1, or if I ping .254 then the reply will come from .254. > > What about a request initiated from Astlinux to an internal LAN device... say ping 192.168.168.99 from Astlinux... will that come from .1 or .254? Can it be specified? And would I even care? > > Just wondering what the practical uses of this are. > > Thanks > David > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 5:40 PM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...> wrote: > > Is this ok? > > Yes, that should work. > > Lonnie > > > > On Jun 23, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > > > Sorry Lonnie > > It would be another address in the same subnet as the address on the interface. > > E.g. 192.168.168.254/24 and adding via ip a command 192.168.168.1/24. > > > > Is this ok? > > > > Regards > > Michael Knill > > > > On 24/6/19, 7:30 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > > > >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > > > > You might have firewall issues doing that. > > > > Best practice is to have only one subnet off an interface. > > > > If a /24 won't do possibly a /22 will. The 'netcalc' command in AstLinux can be helpful. > > > > Lonnie > > > > > > > >> On Jun 23, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Lonnie > >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > >> > >> Regards > >> Michael Knill > >> > >> On 23/6/19, 11:49 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Group > >>> > >>> I know there is EXTIP_ALIAS for WAN interfaces but how would I put on a secondary IP Address for a LAN interface? > >>> Do I need to use ‘ip addr add’ in rc.elocal? > >> > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> Yes, rc.elocal would be the way to do that. > >> > >> I assume you are talking about adding a /32 . > >> > >> Lonnie > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Astlinux-users mailing list > >> Ast...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >> > >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Astlinux-users mailing list > >> Ast...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >> > >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: David K. <da...@ke...> - 2019-06-23 22:16:02
|
How does this work? If my INTIF has both 192.168.168.1 and 192.168.168.254 then I assume that any device on the local LAN could chose to connect to either of these IP addresses and all would be well. So any device on the LAN could ping to either .1 or .254 and get a reply. Am I correct in thinking that Astlinux would "reply" from the address that was used... so if I go to the web interface at 192.168.168.254 then Astlinux will reply from that and not from 192.168.168.1, or if I ping .254 then the reply will come from .254. What about a request initiated from Astlinux to an internal LAN device... say ping 192.168.168.99 from Astlinux... will that come from .1 or .254? Can it be specified? And would I even care? Just wondering what the practical uses of this are. Thanks David On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 5:40 PM Lonnie Abelbeck <li...@lo...> wrote: > > Is this ok? > > Yes, that should work. > > Lonnie > > > > On Jun 23, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Michael Knill < > mic...@ip...> wrote: > > > > Sorry Lonnie > > It would be another address in the same subnet as the address on the > interface. > > E.g. 192.168.168.254/24 and adding via ip a command 192.168.168.1/24. > > > > Is this ok? > > > > Regards > > Michael Knill > > > > On 24/6/19, 7:30 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> > wrote: > > > >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > > > > You might have firewall issues doing that. > > > > Best practice is to have only one subnet off an interface. > > > > If a /24 won't do possibly a /22 will. The 'netcalc' command in > AstLinux can be helpful. > > > > Lonnie > > > > > > > >> On Jun 23, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Michael Knill < > mic...@ip...> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Lonnie > >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > >> > >> Regards > >> Michael Knill > >> > >> On 23/6/19, 11:49 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Michael Knill < > mic...@ip...> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Group > >>> > >>> I know there is EXTIP_ALIAS for WAN interfaces but how would I put on > a secondary IP Address for a LAN interface? > >>> Do I need to use ‘ip addr add’ in rc.elocal? > >> > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> Yes, rc.elocal would be the way to do that. > >> > >> I assume you are talking about adding a /32 . > >> > >> Lonnie > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Astlinux-users mailing list > >> Ast...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >> > >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Astlinux-users mailing list > >> Ast...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > >> > >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Astlinux-users mailing list > > Ast...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to > pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-06-23 21:40:49
|
> Is this ok? Yes, that should work. Lonnie > On Jun 23, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Sorry Lonnie > It would be another address in the same subnet as the address on the interface. > E.g. 192.168.168.254/24 and adding via ip a command 192.168.168.1/24. > > Is this ok? > > Regards > Michael Knill > > On 24/6/19, 7:30 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > > You might have firewall issues doing that. > > Best practice is to have only one subnet off an interface. > > If a /24 won't do possibly a /22 will. The 'netcalc' command in AstLinux can be helpful. > > Lonnie > > > >> On Jun 23, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: >> >> Thanks Lonnie >> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. >> >> Regards >> Michael Knill >> >> On 23/6/19, 11:49 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Group >>> >>> I know there is EXTIP_ALIAS for WAN interfaces but how would I put on a secondary IP Address for a LAN interface? >>> Do I need to use ‘ip addr add’ in rc.elocal? >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> Yes, rc.elocal would be the way to do that. >> >> I assume you are talking about adding a /32 . >> >> Lonnie >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Astlinux-users mailing list >> Ast...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users >> >> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
|
From: Michael K. <mic...@ip...> - 2019-06-23 21:36:56
|
Sorry Lonnie
It would be another address in the same subnet as the address on the interface.
E.g. 192.168.168.254/24 and adding via ip a command 192.168.168.1/24.
Is this ok?
Regards
Michael Knill
On 24/6/19, 7:30 am, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface.
You might have firewall issues doing that.
Best practice is to have only one subnet off an interface.
If a /24 won't do possibly a /22 will. The 'netcalc' command in AstLinux can be helpful.
Lonnie
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Lonnie
> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface.
>
> Regards
> Michael Knill
>
> On 23/6/19, 11:49 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Group
>>
>> I know there is EXTIP_ALIAS for WAN interfaces but how would I put on a secondary IP Address for a LAN interface?
>> Do I need to use ‘ip addr add’ in rc.elocal?
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Yes, rc.elocal would be the way to do that.
>
> I assume you are talking about adding a /32 .
>
> Lonnie
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astlinux-users mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
>
> Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
_______________________________________________
Astlinux-users mailing list
Ast...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr....
|
|
From: Lonnie A. <li...@lo...> - 2019-06-23 21:30:26
|
> No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. You might have firewall issues doing that. Best practice is to have only one subnet off an interface. If a /24 won't do possibly a /22 will. The 'netcalc' command in AstLinux can be helpful. Lonnie > On Jun 23, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: > > Thanks Lonnie > No it would be another address in the /24 range on the interface. > > Regards > Michael Knill > > On 23/6/19, 11:49 pm, "Lonnie Abelbeck" <li...@lo...> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 23, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Michael Knill <mic...@ip...> wrote: >> >> Hi Group >> >> I know there is EXTIP_ALIAS for WAN interfaces but how would I put on a secondary IP Address for a LAN interface? >> Do I need to use ‘ip addr add’ in rc.elocal? > > Hi Michael, > > Yes, rc.elocal would be the way to do that. > > I assume you are talking about adding a /32 . > > Lonnie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... > > > _______________________________________________ > Astlinux-users mailing list > Ast...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users > > Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pa...@kr.... |
63 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
