[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Hilton Travis <Hilton at QuarkAV dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] 1.1b7 bug
 Date:  Sun, 16 May 2004 14:45:11 +1000
Hi Jim,

On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 11:43, Jim Gifford wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:24:42AM +1000, Hilton Travis wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I have spent WAY too long trying to get a Dynalink RTA100 ADSL
> > modem/router to do what it is supposed to, but the interface is worse to
> > nevigate than IOS is for a blind person.
> > 
> > And as I was doing this - getting frustrated at this POS unit - I found
> > a bug (methinks) with m0n0wall 1.1b7.
> > 
> > I managed to get the Dynalink POS to not act as a DHCP Server, and was
> > going to assign a static IP to the m0n0wall that is protecting the
> > internal network from this POS Dynalink unit.  Unfortunately, m0n0wall
> > 1.1b7 cannot work with a "static" WAN connection if you need only a
> > single IP - the maximum subnet is a /31, which isn't quite big enough -
> > I needed a /32.  With the m0n0wall set to 192.168.1.254/31, it failed to
> > communicate with the Dynalink POS that was set to 192.168.1.1/32.
> > 
> > anyone else seen this, or a workaround?
> > 
> > In the meantime, I had to leave the Dynalink POS running as a DHCP
> > Server so the m0n0wall could obtain an IP vis dhcp.
> > 
> 
> This is rather odd.  From a purely layer 3 perspective, the only way that
> 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.1.254 can see each other as being on the same
> network is with a /24 netmask.  It simply can't work any other way,
> unless there is a point-to-point type of connection involved (ie, ppp or
> pptp).

You are, of course, correct.  My frustration at this Dynalink POS was
clouding my senses, it seems.  Yes, the two should have been on a /24 -
/30 network - a /32 is a single IP, and this is not what I was after.  I
could easily have configured the two to talk successfully on a
192.168.1.0/30 network, or a 192.168.1.0/24 network.

Silly me, eh?

> I think perhaps your dynalink pos is misleading you with their "/32"
> mask.  Try using the /24 on your m0n0wall and see if that doesn't take
> care of it.  :)

Nah, the Dynalink POS was frustrating me so much that it started to get
to me more than I thought.

> And also, an interface with a /32 is participating in a network of
> exactly one host (actually, that would be the network, host, and
> broadcast addresses all rolled into one).  I doubt this is really a bug
> in m0n0wall in that case.

Agreed, totally.

> hope this helps, and good luck.

Yeah, it helped clear up my silliness.  :)

The best help I can get is to fsck off the Dynalink POS and replace it
with a decent ADSL modem/router - which is what is going to happen this
week.  Considering it took me over 45 minutes to try and configure port
3389/TCP to pass thru the Dynalink POS and I was still not having
success, it is goooooone!  Outta there.  If the client doesn't want to
do this, then they can pay me for my time trying to configure that
festering POS.  :)

-- 

Regards,

Hilton Travis                   Phone: +61-(0)7-3343-3889
Manager, Quark AudioVisual      Phone: +61-(0)419-792-394
         Quark Computers         http://www.QuarkAV.com/
(Brisbane, Australia)            http://www.QuarkAV.net/

Open Source Projects:		http://www.ares-desktop.org/
				http://www.mamboband.org/

Non Linear Video Editing Solutions & Digital Audio Workstations
 Network Administration, SmoothWall Firewalls, NOD32 AntiVirus
  Conference and Seminar AudioVisual Production and Recording

War doesn't determine who is right. War determines who is left.