9:29 p.m.
i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing
after att update
the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248,
108.220.213.121 is the external ip for the server.
the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd party
router, netgear nighthawk,
the internal 10.0.0.0/ connects to the netgear nighthawk
ATT's broadband configuration is
Blackhole-ATT (wireless name)
Broadband connection source DSL
Broadband connection up
Broadband network type lightspeed
Broadband ipv4 address 108.90.204.76
Broadband gateway address 108.90.204.1
outbound packets from the server (WS), are routed from the 10.0.0.1
nighthawk to the ATT router to the internet.
the 108.90.204.0 network routing from the att router to the att's gateway.
.76 is the router, .1 is the GW.
sample route, ...
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (internal IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (public IP) 2 packets transmitted,
2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
now the mystery. where 108.220.213.121 is a publicly visible ip for the
server, a remote traceroute is wonky!!
consider the below traceroute, it reports hops up to 108.90.204.76,
stopping there instead of doing one more hop
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com
[142.254.236.209]
3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com
[24.30.172.49]
4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms lag-29.lsaicaev01r.netops.charter.com
[72.129.18.240]
5 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms lag-26.lsancarc01r.netops.charter.com
[72.129.17.0]
6 19 ms 13 ms 14 ms lag-16.lsancarc0yw-bcr00.netops.charter.com
[66.109.6.102]
7 25 ms 37 ms 42 ms lag-3.pr2.lax10.netops.charter.com
[107.14.19.41]
8 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms 192.205.32.253
9 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.128.102]
10 24 ms 25 ms 25 ms 12.122.158.41
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms 99.134.39.15
14 25 ms 24 ms 26 ms 99.161.44.79
15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [108.90.204.76]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19
could anyone shed some light on this mystery??
tia,jackc...
10:16 p.m.
On 3/25/22 19:29, Jack Craig wrote:
i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
sample route, ...
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
(internal IP) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
(public IP) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
now the mystery. where 108.220.213.121 is a publicly visible ip for the
server, a remote traceroute is wonky!!
consider the below traceroute, it reports hops up to 108.90.204.76,
stopping there instead of doing one more hop
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com
<http://142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com> [142.254.236.209]
3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com
[snip]
15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net
<http://108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net> [108.90.204.76]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19
could anyone shed some light on this mystery??
Your question and description are very confusing. Can you try again
with the details more organized?
What are you trying to traceroute to at the end? The route in the
traceroute doesn't match the "route" from earlier. I don't understand
what you think should be after that last hop.
ISPs don't always let traceroute requests go through depending on which
method you're using.
1:22 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:16 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> wrote:
On 3/25/22 19:29, Jack Craig wrote:
> i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
>
> sample route, ...
>
> 10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
> (internal IP) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time
1033ms
> 10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH
> 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
> 192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
> packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
> 108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
> transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
> 108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
> transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
> 108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
> (public IP) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time
1001ms
> 108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
> transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>
> now the mystery. where 108.220.213.121 is a publicly visible ip for the
> server, a remote traceroute is wonky!!
>
> consider the below traceroute, it reports hops up to 108.90.204.76,
> stopping there instead of doing one more hop
>
>
> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
> 2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com
> <http://142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com> [142.254.236.209]
> 3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com
[snip]
> 15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
> 108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net
> <http://108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net> [108.90.204.76]
> 16 * * * Request timed out.
> 17 * * * Request timed out.
> 18 * * * Request timed out.
> 19
>
> could anyone shed some light on this mystery??
Your question and description are very confusing. Can you try again
with the details more organized?
What are you trying to traceroute to at the end? The route in the
traceroute doesn't match the "route" from earlier. I don't understand
what you think should be after that last hop.
ISPs don't always let traceroute requests go through depending on which
method you're using.
i had a remote friend try traceroute to 108.220.213.121 to show the trace
stopping at 108.90.204.76.
i dont know why it stops short of my server???
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
11:08 p.m.
On Sat, 2022-03-26 at 11:22 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
i had a remote friend try traceroute to 108.220.213.121 to show the
trace stopping at 108.90.204.76.
i dont know why it stops short of my server???
Things only respond to pings if allowed to. Thanks to continual
hacking attempts, many admins turn off features they don't need, or
feel that someone else may exploit.
Pings (as things like traceroute generally use) only prove that
something responds to pings, they don't prove whether HTTP access to a
webserver works or not. Likewise for any other service running.
Your ISP may be ignoring pings, many other services in between, and
even your own router.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
11:15 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:08 PM Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 2022-03-26 at 11:22 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
> i had a remote friend try traceroute to 108.220.213.121 to show the
> trace stopping at 108.90.204.76.
>
> i dont know why it stops short of my server???
Things only respond to pings if allowed to. Thanks to continual
hacking attempts, many admins turn off features they don't need, or
feel that someone else may exploit.
Pings (as things like traceroute generally use) only prove that
something responds to pings, they don't prove whether HTTP access to a
webserver works or not. Likewise for any other service running.
Your ISP may be ignoring pings, many other services in between, and
even your own router.
but why can i traceroute up to my side of the me<-->isp lan segment??
the att rtr knows of the public ip, why doesnt it get used? the mystery so
far.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022
x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
4:41 a.m.
Tim:
> Your ISP may be ignoring pings, many other services in between,
and
> even your own router.
Jack Craig:
but why can i traceroute up to my side of the me<-->isp lan
segment??
Because some of the equipment responds, others don't. If you look back
at your first posting (repasted below), you'll see there's some in the
middle that don't respond, either. They don't stop the connection
going through past them, they just don't respond to pings.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com [142.254.236.209]
3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com [24.30.172.49]
4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms lag-29.lsaicaev01r.netops.charter.com [72.129.18.240]
5 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms lag-26.lsancarc01r.netops.charter.com [72.129.17.0]
6 19 ms 13 ms 14 ms lag-16.lsancarc0yw-bcr00.netops.charter.com
[66.109.6.102]
7 25 ms 37 ms 42 ms lag-3.pr2.lax10.netops.charter.com [107.14.19.41]
8 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms 192.205.32.253
9 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.128.102]
10 24 ms 25 ms 25 ms 12.122.158.41
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms 99.134.39.15
14 25 ms 24 ms 26 ms 99.161.44.79
15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms 108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net
[108.90.204.76]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19
the att rtr knows of the public ip, why doesnt it get used? the
mystery so far.
When it comes to things close to you, working backwards, inside your
LAN you have your own private IPs. Your router will have its inside IP
and an outside IP given to it by your ISP (those you can easily find
out). What your router first connects to at your ISP may have your-
side and their-side IPs. There will be routes going through the
internals of the ISP through to their supplier. And then there's all
the interconnects to more of the web.
For pings, and more to the point, HTTP traffic to your webserver, they
have to get through all of that. I think you're just going to have to
talk to your ISP about why HTTP traffic doesn't get through.
Though do look through your router's settings again. There may be
firewall or privacy options that block things. And you would need to
set up forwarding/routing rules go pass HTTP through it to your
webserver. Some routers have a DMZ zone feature (demilitarised zone),
where all traffic you haven't specifically set a rule up for can be
forwarded through to a specific LAN IP, or to a ethernet specific
socket on the router. Beware, though, it's unfiltered and unprotected
by any firewall. All the gumph on the internet trying to connect to
you will be allowed through it.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
3:04 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 2:41 AM Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
Tim:
>> Your ISP may be ignoring pings, many other services in between, and
>> even your own router.
Jack Craig:
> but why can i traceroute up to my side of the me<-->isp lan
> segment??
Because some of the equipment responds, others don't. If you look back
at your first posting (repasted below), you'll see there's some in the
middle that don't respond, either. They don't stop the connection
going through past them, they just don't respond to pings.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com
[142.254.236.209]
3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com
[24.30.172.49]
4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms lag-29.lsaicaev01r.netops.charter.com
[72.129.18.240]
5 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms lag-26.lsancarc01r.netops.charter.com
[72.129.17.0]
6 19 ms 13 ms 14 ms
lag-16.lsancarc0yw-bcr00.netops.charter.com [66.109.6.102]
7 25 ms 37 ms 42 ms lag-3.pr2.lax10.netops.charter.com
[107.14.19.41]
8 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms 192.205.32.253
9 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.128.102]
10 24 ms 25 ms 25 ms 12.122.158.41
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms 99.134.39.15
14 25 ms 24 ms 26 ms 99.161.44.79
15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [108.90.204.76]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19
> the att rtr knows of the public ip, why doesnt it get used? the
> mystery so far.
When it comes to things close to you, working backwards, inside your
LAN you have your own private IPs. Your router will have its inside IP
and an outside IP given to it by your ISP (those you can easily find
out). What your router first connects to at your ISP may have your-
side and their-side IPs. There will be routes going through the
internals of the ISP through to their supplier. And then there's all
the interconnects to more of the web.
For pings, and more to the point, HTTP traffic to your webserver, they
have to get through all of that. I think you're just going to have to
talk to your ISP about why HTTP traffic doesn't get through.
Though do look through your router's settings again. There may be
firewall or privacy options that block things. And you would need to
set up forwarding/routing rules go pass HTTP through it to your
webserver. Some routers have a DMZ zone feature (demilitarised zone),
where all traffic you haven't specifically set a rule up for can be
forwarded through to a specific LAN IP, or to a ethernet specific
socket on the router. Beware, though, it's unfiltered and unprotected
by any firewall. All the gumph on the internet trying to connect to
you will be allowed through it.
* the test to change the server ip partially works; that is the srvr can
see the world, but my access to the rest of my internal 10.0.0.0 is not
accessible.*
*if i ad the 10.0.0./24 <http://10.0.0./24> route to the routing for
108.220.213.121 could i not then get to internal and external networks??*
*default via 10.0.0.1 dev eno1 proto static metric 100 10.0.0.0/24
<http://10.0.0.0/24> dev eno1 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.101 metric
100 192.168.122.0/24 <http://192.168.122.0/24> dev virbr0 proto kernel
scope link src 192.168.122.1 linkdown *
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022
x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
4:42 p.m.
I'm wondering if you're worrying about routing when you should be
worrying about the port forward.
Routing: can the server ping, say, 1.1.1.1? Can other hosts at various
points on your LAN? If so, your routes are just fine.
Also, where are your NAT points? There has to be one on the innermost
box with a public address, but is there one between your 10. and 192.
networks? Hopefully the public router is the only thing doing NAT.
Port forward: have you inspected the inbound port forward settings on
the router (the box with the public IP address, I've lost track). You
need one mapping inbound TCP to ws-public-address:443 to
ws-lan-address:443.
Can you run a tcpdump on one of the routers in the chain to see what
happens? My local firewall's a UNIX box so I can do this there to watch
any traffic between an internal host and the outer world.
ANd of course what others have been saying: traceroute does not tell you
everything: various nodes may not respond as needed, and it certainly
will not be passed through to your WS server inless the inbound rule is
wide open (all traffic types), which would be a bad thing.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au>
4:52 p.m.
On 28Mar2022 08:42, Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au> wrote:
I'm wondering if you're worrying about routing when you should
be
worrying about the port forward.
Just to follow up to my own post, here's a description of my home LAN:
public-ip-addr
NBN-modem
192.168.1.0/24
|
------+-------+------
|
192.168.1.2
fw
172.16.1.1
|
----+---------+------
|
172.16.1.6
home-server
I can ssh to my home server because the NBN modem has a public address.
The configuration required is:
NBN modem: static route to 172.16.1.0/24 via the fw addr, 192.168.1.2.
NBN modem: inbound port fwd of TCP port 22 to 172.16.1.6:22.
fw: Firewall rule permitting TCP traffic to 172.16.1.6:22 from the
public interface.
Default route for the home server if the fw internal addr.
Default route for the fw is the NBN modem internal addr.
NAT happens only on the NBN modem.
That's all.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au>
10:24 p.m.
On 26/03/2022 10:29, Jack Craig wrote:
i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing after att update
the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248
<http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>;, 108.220.213.121 is the external ip for the
server.
the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd party router,
netgear nighthawk,
the internal 10.0.0.0/ <http://10.0.0.0/> connects to the netgear nighthawk
ATT's broadband configuration is
Blackhole-ATT (wireless name)
Broadband connection source DSL
Broadband connection up
Broadband network type lightspeed
Broadband ipv4 address 108.90.204.76
Broadband gateway address 108.90.204.1
outbound packets from the server (WS), are routed from the 10.0.0.1 nighthawk to the ATT
router to the internet.
the 108.90.204.0 network routing from the att router to the att's gateway. .76 is the
router, .1 is the GW.
sample route, ...
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com> (internal IP) 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH 2 packets transmitted, 2
received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0%
packet loss, time 1001ms
108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received,
0% packet loss, time 1002ms
108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets transmitted, 2
received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com> (public IP)
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received,
0% packet loss, time 1001ms
Sounds like 108.90.204.76 is missing routes. I'm assuming that 108.220.213.121
previously answered pings
and originally was the final destination of an external traceroute.
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ traceroute 108.220.213.121
traceroute to 108.220.213.121 (108.220.213.121), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 _gateway (192.168.1.1) 0.434 ms 0.728 ms 0.681 ms
2 * * *
3 tpdt-3308.hinet.net (168.95.82.198) 23.574 ms 23.530 ms 23.451 ms
4 tpdb-3031.hinet.net (220.128.1.102) 7.827 ms 220-128-1-50.hinet-ip.hinet.net
(220.128.1.50) 7.210 ms tpdt-3032.hinet.net (220.128.27.94) 7.386 ms
5 r4102-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.7.69) 7.123 ms r4102-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.14.93)
7.296 ms r4102-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.13.93) 7.252 ms
6 r4002-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.6.85) 7.538 ms r4002-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.6.81)
6.710 ms 6.656 ms
7 pa-r32.us.hinet.net (202.39.91.29) 133.962 ms 132.083 ms 132.075 ms
8 32.141.85.13 (32.141.85.13) 133.458 ms 133.358 ms 133.297 ms
9 12.123.242.38 (12.123.242.38) 138.066 ms 137.303 ms 139.959 ms
10 12.122.149.225 (12.122.149.225) 143.022 ms 137.567 ms 137.573 ms
11 12.122.158.25 (12.122.158.25) 138.446 ms 137.435 ms 138.346 ms
12 * * *
13 99.134.39.24 (99.134.39.24) 136.686 ms 136.506 ms *
14 99.134.39.11 (99.134.39.11) 136.191 ms 136.211 ms 136.066 ms
15 99.161.44.77 (99.161.44.77) 137.461 ms 137.438 ms 138.025 ms
16 108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net (108.90.204.76) 157.627 ms 157.580 ms
157.980 ms
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *
Remember if a server that should be visible externally, but isn't. Then outbound
requests/replies will also fail.
--
Did 황준호 die?
1:28 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:25 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 26/03/2022 10:29, Jack Craig wrote:
>
>
>
> i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
>
> i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing
after att update
> the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
>
> i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248 <
http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>;, 108.220.213.121 is the external ip
for the server.
>
> the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd
party router, netgear nighthawk,
>
> the internal 10.0.0.0/ <http://10.0.0.0/> connects to the netgear
nighthawk
>
> ATT's broadband configuration is
>
> Blackhole-ATT (wireless name)
>
> Broadband connection source DSL
> Broadband connection up
> Broadband network type lightspeed
> Broadband ipv4 address 108.90.204.76
> Broadband gateway address 108.90.204.1
>
>
> outbound packets from the server (WS), are routed from the 10.0.0.1
nighthawk to the ATT router to the internet.
>
> the 108.90.204.0 network routing from the att router to the att's
gateway. .76 is the router, .1 is the GW.
>
> sample route, ...
>
> 10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
(internal IP) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
> 10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
> 192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2 packets transmitted,
2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
> 108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
> 108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
> 108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
(public IP) 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
> 108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>
Sounds like 108.90.204.76 is missing routes. I'm assuming that
108.220.213.121 previously answered pings
and originally was the final destination of an external traceroute.
i was not seeing a way to add att rtr to have new routes.
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ traceroute 108.220.213.121
traceroute to 108.220.213.121 (108.220.213.121), 30 hops max, 60 byte
packets
1 _gateway (192.168.1.1) 0.434 ms 0.728 ms 0.681 ms
2 * * *
3 tpdt-3308.hinet.net (168.95.82.198) 23.574 ms 23.530 ms 23.451 ms
4 tpdb-3031.hinet.net (220.128.1.102) 7.827 ms
220-128-1-50.hinet-ip.hinet.net (220.128.1.50) 7.210 ms
tpdt-3032.hinet.net (220.128.27.94) 7.386 ms
5 r4102-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.7.69) 7.123 ms r4102-s2.tp.hinet.net
(220.128.14.93) 7.296 ms r4102-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.13.93) 7.252 ms
6 r4002-s2.tp.hinet.net (220.128.6.85) 7.538 ms r4002-s2.tp.hinet.net
(220.128.6.81) 6.710 ms 6.656 ms
7 pa-r32.us.hinet.net (202.39.91.29) 133.962 ms 132.083 ms 132.075 ms
8 32.141.85.13 (32.141.85.13) 133.458 ms 133.358 ms 133.297 ms
9 12.123.242.38 (12.123.242.38) 138.066 ms 137.303 ms 139.959 ms
10 12.122.149.225 (12.122.149.225) 143.022 ms 137.567 ms 137.573 ms
11 12.122.158.25 (12.122.158.25) 138.446 ms 137.435 ms 138.346 ms
12 * * *
13 99.134.39.24 (99.134.39.24) 136.686 ms 136.506 ms *
14 99.134.39.11 (99.134.39.11) 136.191 ms 136.211 ms 136.066 ms
15 99.161.44.77 (99.161.44.77) 137.461 ms 137.438 ms 138.025 ms
16 108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net (108.90.204.76) 157.627
ms 157.580 ms 157.980 ms
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *
Remember if a server that should be visible externally, but isn't. Then
outbound requests/replies will also fail.
my server is pingable at 10.0.0.101 & 108.220.213.121.
this with & without firewalld
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:24 a.m.
I normally don't top post, but there nothing I can meaningfully trim
from your excellent detailed description. So I'm leaving it below.
To your traceroute, route tracing (IIRC) depends on setting a max hop
count on the outbound packets. When the hop count is exceeded, you get
back an ICMP error packet indicating that the count was exceeded from
the router which decremented the counter to 0.
So to trace a route you send a packet with a max hop count of 1, and get
a packet back from your router, and that tells you the router IP. Then
you send one with a max hop count of 2 and get an error packet back from
the next router upstream, telling you its IP address. And so on.
Plenty of network routers do not respond to pings and do not return
these error packets - they just drop the packet on the floor. These just
show up as gaps in the traceroute, because traceroute does not receive
the ICMP response from the routers at that hop count.
So what you see below is normal. Don't sweat it. Here's an example from
where I'm sitting to a host on a TPG network:
traceroute to ************ (14.203.40.46), 64 hops max, 52 byte
packets
1 cskk-3g (10.0.0.138) 2.220 ms 1.824 ms 1.716 ms
2 * * *
3 10.4.37.50 (10.4.37.50) 31.144 ms 26.018 ms 55.897 ms
4 10.5.86.65 (10.5.86.65) 33.860 ms 34.792 ms 36.855 ms
5 10.5.86.72 (10.5.86.72) 49.968 ms 41.517 ms 30.999 ms
6 203.50.63.96 (203.50.63.96) 35.888 ms 34.900 ms 26.032 ms
7 bundle-ether26.chw-core10.sydney.telstra.net (203.50.61.96) 27.825
ms 31.547 ms 31.129 ms
8 bundle-ether1.chw-edge903.sydney.telstra.net (203.50.11.177) 28.825
ms 32.709 ms 35.956 ms
9 aap3461251.lnk.telstra.net (110.145.180.218) 30.886 ms 25.857 ms
29.599 ms
10 syd-sot-ken-wgw1-be-30.tpgi.com.au (203.219.107.193) 29.719 ms
28.821 ms 28.611 ms
11 203-221-3-109.tpgi.com.au (203.221.3.109) 33.221 ms 31.921 ms
203-221-3-45.tpgi.com.au (203.221.3.45) 40.022 ms
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au>
On 25Mar2022 19:29, Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
>
>i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing
>after att update
>the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
>
>i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248,
>108.220.213.121 is the external ip for the server.
>
>the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd party
>router, netgear nighthawk,
>
>the internal 10.0.0.0/ connects to the netgear nighthawk
>
>ATT's broadband configuration is
>
> Blackhole-ATT (wireless name)
>
> Broadband connection source DSL
> Broadband connection up
> Broadband network type lightspeed
> Broadband ipv4 address 108.90.204.76
> Broadband gateway address 108.90.204.1
>
>outbound packets from the server (WS), are routed from the 10.0.0.1
>nighthawk to the ATT router to the internet.
>
>the 108.90.204.0 network routing from the att router to the att's gateway.
>.76 is the router, .1 is the GW.
>
>sample route, ...
>
>10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (internal IP) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
>10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH 2
>packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
>192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
>packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
>108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (public IP) 2 packets transmitted,
>2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>
>now the mystery. where 108.220.213.121 is a publicly visible ip for the
>server, a remote traceroute is wonky!!
>
>consider the below traceroute, it reports hops up to 108.90.204.76,
>stopping there instead of doing one more hop
>
>
> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
> 2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com
>[142.254.236.209]
> 3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com
>[24.30.172.49]
> 4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms lag-29.lsaicaev01r.netops.charter.com
>[72.129.18.240]
> 5 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms lag-26.lsancarc01r.netops.charter.com
>[72.129.17.0]
> 6 19 ms 13 ms 14 ms lag-16.lsancarc0yw-bcr00.netops.charter.com
>[66.109.6.102]
> 7 25 ms 37 ms 42 ms lag-3.pr2.lax10.netops.charter.com
>[107.14.19.41]
> 8 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms 192.205.32.253
> 9 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.128.102]
> 10 24 ms 25 ms 25 ms 12.122.158.41
> 11 * * * Request timed out.
> 12 * * * Request timed out.
> 13 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms 99.134.39.15
> 14 25 ms 24 ms 26 ms 99.161.44.79
> 15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
>108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [108.90.204.76]
> 16 * * * Request timed out.
> 17 * * * Request timed out.
> 18 * * * Request timed out.
> 19
>
>
>could anyone shed some light on this mystery??
>
>tia,jackc...
2:55 a.m.
On 26/03/2022 14:24, Cameron Simpson wrote:
So what you see below is normal. Don't sweat it. Here's an
example from
where I'm sitting to a host on a TPG network:
Maybe he should be "sweating it". He has a web server with a public IP
address.
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ host ws.linuxlighthouse.com
ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
--
Did 황준호 die?
3:33 a.m.
Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko
<ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is the OP's network
mystery.
Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would be a good start to get the
mystery resolved.
3:57 a.m.
On 26/03/2022 16:33, Peter Boy wrote:
> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
>
> ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
>
> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is the OP's network
mystery.
Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would be a good start to get
the mystery resolved.
Yes, that is a qood question. Can the server be accessed on the internal network.
Also, I wonder if the OP has rebooted the network equipment.
--
Did 황준호 die?
1:42 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:57 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 26/03/2022 16:33, Peter Boy wrote:
>
>> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
>>
>> ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
>>
>> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
> Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is the OP's
network mystery.
>
> Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would be a
good start to get the mystery resolved.
Yes, that is a qood question. Can the server be accessed on the internal
network.
Also, I wonder if the OP has rebooted the network equipment.
rebooted yes
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
7:25 p.m.
Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 11:42:57 -0700
From: Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:57 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
> On 26/03/2022 16:33, Peter Boy wrote:
> >
> >> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko
> >> <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
> >>
> >> ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
> >>
> >> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
> > Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is
> > the OP's
> network mystery.
> >
> > Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would
> > be a
> good start to get the mystery resolved.
>
> Yes, that is a qood question. Can the server be accessed on the
> internal network.
>
> Also, I wonder if the OP has rebooted the network equipment.
>
rebooted yes
I assume you had address mapping (external to internal) and
port-forwarding set up on the old router? Are they set up on the new
router too?
11:12 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 5:27 PM Richard <
inbound-lists-fedora(a)listmail.innovate.net> wrote:
> Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 11:42:57 -0700
> From: Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:57 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2022 16:33, Peter Boy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko
>> >> <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
>> >>
>> >> ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
>> >>
>> >> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
>> > Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is
>> > the OP's
>> network mystery.
>> >
>> > Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would
>> > be a
>> good start to get the mystery resolved.
>>
>> Yes, that is a qood question. Can the server be accessed on the
>> internal network.
>>
>> Also, I wonder if the OP has rebooted the network equipment.
>>
>
> rebooted yes
>
I assume you had address mapping (external to internal) and
port-forwarding set up on the old router? Are they set up on the new
router too?
port forwarding is enabled on my 3rd party router, not the att rtr, as it
was before
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
9:59 p.m.
On 27/03/2022 02:42, Jack Craig wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:57 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 26/03/2022 16:33, Peter Boy wrote:
>
>> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
>>
>> ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com> has address
108.220.213.121
>>
>> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
> Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is the OP's
network mystery.
>
> Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would be a good start
to get the mystery resolved.
Yes, that is a qood question. Can the server be accessed on the internal network.
Also, I wonder if the OP has rebooted the network equipment.
rebooted yes
I suggest you call AT&T support as they supplied the replacement equipment and it
should have been configured to
pass 108.220.213.X traffic. That appears to be nott the case.
FWIW, It seems the Fedora mailing list was "stuck". All the mail just flooded
in on Sunday late morning my time.
--
Did 황준호 die?
11:19 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 8:00 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 02:42, Jack Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:57 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
>
> On 26/03/2022 16:33, Peter Boy wrote:
> >
> >> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com
>:
> >>
> >> ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com> has
address 108.220.213.121
> >>
> >> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
> > Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is
the OP's network mystery.
> >
> > Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would be
a good start to get the mystery resolved.
>
> Yes, that is a qood question. Can the server be accessed on the
internal network.
>
> Also, I wonder if the OP has rebooted the network equipment.
>
>
> rebooted yes
I suggest you call AT&T support as they supplied the replacement equipment
and it should have been configured to
pass 108.220.213.X traffic. That appears to be nott the case.
FWIW, It seems the Fedora mailing list was "stuck". All the mail just
flooded in on Sunday late morning my time.
after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, att did send a tech and for
general
internet access its fine.
just not working with my configuration...
at the moment, trying to find a static route option for att rtr.
static routes on the internal router wont help, right??
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
12:20 a.m.
On 27/03/2022 12:19, Jack Craig wrote:
after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, att did send a tech and for
general internet access its fine.
just not working with my configuration...
at the moment, trying to find a static route option for att rtr.
static routes on the internal router wont help, right??
I guess I don't really understand what HW and Physical Configuration.
You have a DSL router. The router has 4 Ethernet ports. In your configuration, what are
these ports connected to?
--
Did 황준호 die?
12:57 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:20 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 12:19, Jack Craig wrote:
> after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, att did send a tech and for
general internet access its fine.
> just not working with my configuration...
>
> at the moment, trying to find a static route option for att rtr.
>
> static routes on the internal router wont help, right??
I guess I don't really understand what HW and Physical Configuration.
You have a DSL router. The router has 4 Ethernet ports. In your
configuration, what are these ports connected to?
ok, ...
(internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear
nighthawk>--lan connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
make sense?
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:05 a.m.
On 27/03/2022 13:57, Jack Craig wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:20 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 12:19, Jack Craig wrote:
> after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, att did send a tech and for general
internet access its fine.
> just not working with my configuration...
>
> at the moment, trying to find a static route option for att rtr.
>
> static routes on the internal router wont help, right??
I guess I don't really understand what HW and Physical Configuration.
You have a DSL router. The router has 4 Ethernet ports. In your configuration, what
are these ports connected to?
ok, ...
(internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear nighthawk>--lan
connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
make sense?
Is your srvr configured manually? Meaning, a static IP?
If so, try connecting the bgw210700 directly to the srvr. Then try accessing sites from
the server.
--
Did 황준호 die?
1:40 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:06 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 13:57, Jack Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:20 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2022 12:19, Jack Craig wrote:
> > after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, att did send a tech and
for general internet access its fine.
> > just not working with my configuration...
> >
> > at the moment, trying to find a static route option for att rtr.
> >
> > static routes on the internal router wont help, right??
>
> I guess I don't really understand what HW and Physical Configuration.
>
> You have a DSL router. The router has 4 Ethernet ports. In your
configuration, what are these ports connected to?
>
>
> ok, ...
>
> (internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear
nighthawk>--lan connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
>
> make sense?
>
Is your srvr configured manually? Meaning, a static IP?
If so, try connecting the bgw210700 directly to the srvr. Then try
accessing sites from the server.
but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
still make sense??
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:52 a.m.
On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
still make sense??
I see....
To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of 108.220.213.121 and then
connect it to the
BGW210-700.
It seems the BGW210-700 may not be as capable as the pace 5238ac was.
--
Did 황준호 die?
2:04 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:53 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
> but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
>
> still make sense??
I see....
To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of
108.220.213.121 and then connect it to the
BGW210-700.
It seems the BGW210-700 may not be as capable as the pace 5238ac was.
ok, first thing in the morning. I screw everything up that I do after
midnight! :(
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
2:06 a.m.
On 27/03/2022 15:04, Jack Craig wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:53 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
> but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and 108.90.204.76.
>
> still make sense??
I see....
To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of 108.220.213.121 and
then connect it to the
BGW210-700.
It seems the BGW210-700 may not be as capable as the pace 5238ac was.
ok, first thing in the morning. I screw everything up that I do after midnight! :(
The other idea is to connect a device via WiFi and see what IP address gets assigned to
it.
--
Did 황준호 die?
2:12 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 15:04, Jack Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:53 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
> > but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
> >
> > still make sense??
>
> I see....
>
> To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of
108.220.213.121 and then connect it to the
> BGW210-700.
>
> It seems the BGW210-700 may not be as capable as the pace 5238ac was.
>
>
> ok, first thing in the morning. I screw everything up that I do after
midnight! :(
>
The other idea is to connect a device via WiFi and see what IP address
gets assigned to it.
well, the 2.4 on the att rtr is dhcp'ing 192.168.1.63 to 192.168.1.253
the netgear is dhcp'in 10.0.0.20 - 10.0.0.99
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
2:15 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
> On 27/03/2022 15:04, Jack Craig wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:53 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
> > > but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
> 108.90.204.76.
> > >
> > > still make sense??
> >
> > I see....
> >
> > To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of
> 108.220.213.121 and then connect it to the
> > BGW210-700.
>
what routing/gateway should the srvr use for this test??
>
> > It seems the BGW210-700 may not be as capable as the pace 5238ac
> was.
> >
> >
> > ok, first thing in the morning. I screw everything up that I do after
> midnight! :(
> >
>
> The other idea is to connect a device via WiFi and see what IP address
> gets assigned to it.
>
well, the 2.4 on the att rtr is dhcp'ing 192.168.1.63 to 192.168.1.253
the netgear is dhcp'in 10.0.0.20 - 10.0.0.99
>
> --
> Did 황준호 die?
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
2:52 a.m.
On 27/03/2022 15:15, Jack Craig wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2022 15:04, Jack Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:53 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
> > but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
> >
> > still make sense??
>
> I see....
>
> To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of
108.220.213.121 and then connect it to the
> BGW210-700.
what routing/gateway should the srvr use for this test??
The server itself.
I'm suspecting your new device is unable to act as a pass though to other routers.
--
Did 황준호 die?
3:05 a.m.
On 27/03/2022 15:52, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 27/03/2022 15:15, Jack Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2022 15:04, Jack Craig wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:53 PM Ed Greshko
<ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/03/2022 14:40, Jack Craig wrote:
> > > but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
> > >
> > > still make sense??
> >
> > I see....
> >
> > To test, I want you to make the server a static ip address of
108.220.213.121 and then connect it to the
> > BGW210-700.
>
>
> what routing/gateway should the srvr use for this test??
The server itself.
I'm suspecting your new device is unable to act as a pass though to other routers.
To be more specific, it doesn't have to be the server.
Take any Linux Box, manually configure the eithernet port to have a public IP address.
Connect it to the new ATT
router and see if you have connectivity.
--
Did 황준호 die?
2:23 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:40 PM Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:06 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
> On 27/03/2022 13:57, Jack Craig wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:20 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 27/03/2022 12:19, Jack Craig wrote:
> > > after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, att did send a tech and
> for general internet access its fine.
> > > just not working with my configuration...
> > >
> > > at the moment, trying to find a static route option for att rtr.
> > >
> > > static routes on the internal router wont help, right??
> >
> > I guess I don't really understand what HW and Physical
> Configuration.
> >
> > You have a DSL router. The router has 4 Ethernet ports. In your
> configuration, what are these ports connected to?
> >
> >
> > ok, ...
> >
> > (internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear
> nighthawk>--lan connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
> >
> > make sense?
> >
>
> Is your srvr configured manually? Meaning, a static IP?
>
> If so, try connecting the bgw210700 directly to the srvr. Then try
> accessing sites from the server.
>
but srvr is on 10.0.0.101, att rtr is between 192.168.1.254 and
108.90.204.76.
still make sense??
192.168.1.254 is att rtr (i can'see',but not touch 108.90.204.0)
att rtr is dhcp 192.168.63-192.168.1.200)
10.0.0.1 is the NH using port mapping to map 108.220.213.121 <-->
10.0.0.101
is my configuration goal an unreasonable one?
>
> --
> Did 황준호 die?
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
1:14 a.m.
On 3/26/22 22:57, Jack Craig wrote:
(internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear
nighthawk>--lan connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
Now we're getting somewhere. Can you also assign the following IP
addresses from your original email into that diagram?
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (internal IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (public IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
You wrote:
i have a static ip from att in the range
108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248, 108.220.213.121 is the external ip for
the server.
But you list two IP addresses from that subnet. Did they actually give
you two addresses? I can ping the .126 one, but not the .121 one.
1:35 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:14 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> wrote:
On 3/26/22 22:57, Jack Craig wrote:
> (internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear
> nighthawk>--lan connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
Now we're getting somewhere. Can you also assign the following IP
addresses from your original email into that diagram?
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (internal IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (public IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
You wrote:
> i have a static ip from att in the range
108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248, 108.220.213.121 is the external ip for
the server.
But you list two IP addresses from that subnet. Did they actually give
you two addresses? I can ping the .126 one, but not the .121 one.
.121 was supposed to be exported ip, the 126 they said was gateway...
block of 8, 5 usable...
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state
UNKNOWN group
default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
*2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state
UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether 50:65:f3:4a:ec:e5 brd
ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff altname enp0s31f6 inet 10.0.0.101/24
<http://10.0.0.101/24> brd 10.0.0.255 scope global noprefixroute eno1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6
fe80::2f5c:874d:5113:3d37/64 scope link noprefixroute valid_lft
forever preferred_lft forever*
3: virbr0: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue
state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 52:54:00:06:e4:2a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
current srv config, static,
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
10:33 p.m.
On 3/26/22 23:35, Jack Craig wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:14 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net
<mailto:samuel@sieb.net>> wrote:
On 3/26/22 22:57, Jack Craig wrote:
> (internet)--<att modem|bgw210700>-----lan connect---<netgear
> nighthawk>--lan connect-----[netgear switch]------<srvr>
Now we're getting somewhere. Can you also assign the following IP
addresses from your original email into that diagram?
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com <http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com>
(internal IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2
packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com
<http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com> (public IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
You wrote:
> i have a static ip from att in the range
108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248
<http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>;, 108.220.213.121 is the
external ip for
the server.
But you list two IP addresses from that subnet. Did they actually give
you two addresses? I can ping the .126 one, but not the .121 one.
.121 was supposed to be exported ip, the 126 they said was gateway...
block of 8, 5 usable...
Ok, they give you a small subnet. If .126 is the gateway, then is that
your cable modem or the upstream gateway or do you have some computer on
that address?
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state
UNKNOWN
group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 <http://127.0.0.1/8> scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
*2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel
state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 50:65:f3:4a:ec:e5 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
altname enp0s31f6
inet 10.0.0.101/24 <http://10.0.0.101/24> brd 10.0.0.255 scope
global noprefixroute eno1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::2f5c:874d:5113:3d37/64 scope link noprefixroute
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever*
3: virbr0: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc
noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 52:54:00:06:e4:2a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.122.1/24 <http://192.168.122.1/24> brd
192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
This doesn't help at all. You still haven't created a useful diagram
with IP addresses, so I have no idea how your network is configured.
You appear to have several different network ranges hooked up somehow.
Is it really just me? I see various people responding. Do you actually
understand what his setup is? It doesn't make any sense at all to me.
11:18 p.m.
On 28/03/2022 11:33, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Is it really just me? I see various people responding. Do you
actually understand what his setup is? It doesn't make any sense at all to me.
It is not only you. I haven't grasped the setup either.
However, I would note that everything was working for him the way he wanted until his
Broadband supplier
replaced the Cable Modem.
--
Did 황준호 die?
9:22 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 28/03/2022 11:33, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> Is it really just me? I see various people responding. Do you actually understand
what his setup is? It doesn't make any sense at all to me.
It is not only you. I haven't grasped the setup either.
However, I would note that everything was working for him the way he wanted until his
Broadband supplier
replaced the Cable Modem.
I've been reluctant to contribute as well, due to not really
understanding the setup. But given the Cable Modem was replaced, I've
been wondering if this is as simple as the prior modem being in
"bridge mode" - i.e. passing all traffic without usingg NAT or routing
- and the new modem needs to be reconfigured?
2:10 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:22 AM Go Canes <letsgonhlcanes0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:18 AM Ed Greshko
<ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>
wrote:
>
> On 28/03/2022 11:33, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > Is it really just me? I see various people responding. Do you
actually understand what his setup is? It doesn't make any sense at all to
me.
>
> It is not only you. I haven't grasped the setup either.
>
> However, I would note that everything was working for him the way he
wanted until his Broadband supplier
> replaced the Cable Modem.
I've been reluctant to contribute as well, due to not really
understanding the setup. But given the Cable Modem was replaced, I've
been wondering if this is as simple as the prior modem being in
"bridge mode" - i.e. passing all traffic without usingg NAT or routing
i had thought of using the firewalls of both the ATT rtr & NH firewalls
passing through
http & https. also i thought bridge mode wsa a security risk???
- and the new modem needs to be reconfigured?
att came on site and reconfigured the bgw210700 to its setup
as I bought the static ip & isp service,
i expect they have it properly set, But!
as you see i am over my head...
last year this time, i had a pace 5238ac in the at&t rtr role.
as the result of a mid february sserive upgrade/rtr replacement.
i needed more wifi service so i bought the nighthawk thinking to cascade
the NH behind(required)
arris bgw210700. in last years config, i had all traffic routed through the
ATT and did port mapping from the internet
from static ip external to internal network(10.0.0.0) on the NH.
10.0.0.0 was not shared with the public subnet and it all just worked.
tracing ip's & networks, i get...
108.90.204.1 isp GW
108.90.204.76 isp ATT rtr (WAN side)
192.168.1.254 ATT rtr access (LAN side)
10.0.0.1 NH GW (NH LAN )
10.0.0.101 (aka 108.220.213.121) WS srvr.
is this an unreasonable configuration given my goal?
it was also asked what networks i used to transition public subnet to
private subnet as, ...
192.168.1.0 to 10.0.0.0
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
6:28 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:11 PM Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:22 AM Go Canes
<letsgonhlcanes0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been reluctant to contribute as well, due to not really
> understanding the setup. But given the Cable Modem was replaced, I've
> been wondering if this is as simple as the prior modem being in
> "bridge mode" - i.e. passing all traffic without usingg NAT or routing
i had thought of using the firewalls of both the ATT rtr & NH firewalls passing
through
http & https. also i thought bridge mode wsa a security risk???
*Anything* exposed to the internet suffers the security risk
(including your web server). If the NH (Nighthawk, I am assuming) is
running in "firewall" mode, putting the Cable Modem in bridge mode
moves the risk from the Cable Modem to the Nighthawk. IMHO, *you*
control the updates to the Nighthawk, so you can make sure it is
up-to-date. Your ISP may or may not keep the Cable Modem up-to-date.
Since you have two firewall/NAT routers (if I have understood things
correctly), you might consider connecting all the Internet exposed
systems to the Cable Modem (assuming it has multiple ports), and put
your private systems behind the Nighthawk.
Crude diagram of what I am suggesting that may or may not survive
formatting.....:
ISP - Cable Modem -| - Web Server
| - something else that needs to be
publicly accessible
| - Nighthawk -|- laptop
| - desktop
(and I have no idea if this fits in with how your ISP has your IP
subnet configured - I am starting with a clean slate.)
7:31 p.m.
thx, i was about to ask for recommendations, i'll read this and see what
coherence i can bring to this site
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Go Canes <letsgonhlcanes0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:11 PM Jack Craig
<jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:22 AM Go Canes <letsgonhlcanes0(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> I've been reluctant to contribute as well, due to not really
>> understanding the setup. But given the Cable Modem was replaced, I've
>> been wondering if this is as simple as the prior modem being in
>> "bridge mode" - i.e. passing all traffic without usingg NAT or
routing
>
>
> i had thought of using the firewalls of both the ATT rtr & NH firewalls
passing through
> http & https. also i thought bridge mode wsa a security risk???
*Anything* exposed to the internet suffers the security risk
(including your web server). If the NH (Nighthawk, I am assuming) is
running in "firewall" mode, putting the Cable Modem in bridge mode
moves the risk from the Cable Modem to the Nighthawk. IMHO, *you*
control the updates to the Nighthawk, so you can make sure it is
up-to-date. Your ISP may or may not keep the Cable Modem up-to-date.
Since you have two firewall/NAT routers (if I have understood things
correctly), you might consider connecting all the Internet exposed
systems to the Cable Modem (assuming it has multiple ports), and put
your private systems behind the Nighthawk.
Crude diagram of what I am suggesting that may or may not survive
formatting.....:
ISP - Cable Modem -| - Web Server
| - something else that needs to be
publicly accessible
| - Nighthawk -|- laptop
| - desktop
(and I have no idea if this fits in with how your ISP has your IP
subnet configured - I am starting with a clean slate.)
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
12:11 a.m.
On 3/28/22 12:10, Jack Craig wrote:
i needed more wifi service so i bought the nighthawk thinking to
cascade
the NH behind(required)
arris bgw210700. in last years config, i had all traffic routed through
the ATT and did port mapping from the internet
from static ip external to internal network(10.0.0.0) on the NH.
10.0.0.0 was not shared with the public subnet and it all just worked.
tracing ip's & networks, i get...
108.90.204.1 isp GW
108.90.204.76 isp ATT rtr (WAN side)
192.168.1.254 ATT rtr access (LAN side)
10.0.0.1 NH GW (NH LAN )
10.0.0.101 (aka 108.220.213.121) WS srvr.
is this an unreasonable configuration given my goal?
it was also asked what networks i used to transition public subnet to
private subnet as, ...
192.168.1.0 to 10.0.0.0
Instead of all this random noise, can you please make a diagram of your
devices, their ports and which IP is where. Your questions and
descriptions are mostly incomprehensible. You had an almost useful
diagram a couple of days ago, but with no IP addresses.
3:40 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 10:11 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> wrote:
On 3/28/22 12:10, Jack Craig wrote:
> i needed more wifi service so i bought the nighthawk thinking to cascade
> the NH behind(required)
> arris bgw210700. in last years config, i had all traffic routed through
> the ATT and did port mapping from the internet
> from static ip external to internal network(10.0.0.0) on the NH.
>
> 10.0.0.0 was not shared with the public subnet and it all just worked.
>
> tracing ip's & networks, i get...
>
> 108.90.204.1 isp GW
> 108.90.204.76 isp ATT rtr (WAN side)
>
> 192.168.1.254 ATT rtr access (LAN side)
>
> 10.0.0.1 NH GW (NH LAN )
>
> 10.0.0.101 (aka 108.220.213.121) WS srvr.
>
> is this an unreasonable configuration given my goal?
>
> it was also asked what networks i used to transition public subnet to
> private subnet as, ...
>
> 192.1
*68.1.0 to 10.0.0.0 [Cloud to att broadband]][ATT rtr 192.168.1.254
device_id ] --lan port 1 connect to NH uplink --[NH rtr gateway
10.0.0.1 ][NH rtr gateway uplink netgear switch ][-- netgear switch,
port 15 ] 10.0.0.101 SRVR[-- netgear switch, port 14 ] 10.0.0.120 NVR[--
netgear switch, port 13 ] 10.0.0.122 IP Camera[-- netgear switch, port 10
] 10.0.0.124 IP Camera[-- netgear switch, port 12 ] 10.0.0.126 IP
Camera[-- netgear switch, port 12 ] 10.0.0.126 IP Camerai dont have a way
to show the network as an image/ diagram as if i post with an included png
or jpg, the post is dropped.wall broadband connection goes to ATT rtr.att
rtr connects to the NH rtrNH rtr connects to switch*
if this isn't helpful, how might i improve it?
Instead of all this random noise, can you please make a diagram of your
devices, their ports and which IP is where. Your questions and
descriptions are mostly incomprehensible. You had an almost useful
diagram a couple of days ago, but with no IP addresses.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
2:59 p.m.
Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 23:35:31 -0700
From: Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com>
> > i have a static ip from att in the range
> > 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248, 108.220.213.121 is the external
> > ip for the server.
>
> But you list two IP addresses from that subnet. Did they actually
> give you two addresses? I can ping the .126 one, but not the .121
> one.
.121 was supposed to be exported ip, the 126 they said was
gateway...
block of 8, 5 usable...
Not trying to wade too deeply into this at the moment, but noticed:
108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248, 108.220.213.121
in the above.
That ip address/netmask doesn't result in an allocated block in the
108.220.213.120 range. So, if you are using it in your configuration
things will be misaligned.
An ip address/netmask of 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248 results in a
usable range of 108.220.213.1 - 108.220.213.6.
An ip address/netmask of 108.220.213.120/255.255.255.248 results in a
usable range of 108.220.213.121 - 108.220.213.126. The latter seems
to be what you believe your allocation is.
On the more general front, drawings of your network layout aren't
necessary, but a clear description is. I think it would be useful if
you carefully list the devices and give the inbound and outbound
address/range for each of the devices. Include information on any
mappings (where the inbound and outbound ranges are different) as
well as port forwardings>.
1:41 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:34 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Am 26.03.2022 um 08:55 schrieb Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
>
> ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
>
> Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
Not surprisingly, the server is unavailable. After all, this is the OP's
network mystery.
Question is, can the OP log in to the server anyway? That would be a good
start to get the mystery resolved.
yes, all local access work. dropping the firewall doesnt make a difference
either.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:39 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 12:56 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 26/03/2022 14:24, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> So what you see below is normal. Don't sweat it. Here's an example from
> where I'm sitting to a host on a TPG network:
>
Maybe he should be "sweating it". He has a web server with a public IP
address.
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ host ws.linuxlighthouse.com
ws.linuxlighthouse.com has address 108.220.213.121
Now try connecting to http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/
i have had http & https working for my local access, but its remote access
of the same that i am having issues ith...
also, i have domains, linuxlighthouse.com , www.linuxlighthouse.com &
ws.linuxlighthouse.com
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:34 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au> wrote:
I normally don't top post, but there nothing I can meaningfully
trim
from your excellent detailed description. So I'm leaving it below.
To your traceroute, route tracing (IIRC) depends on setting a max hop
count on the outbound packets. When the hop count is exceeded, you get
back an ICMP error packet indicating that the count was exceeded from
the router which decremented the counter to 0.
So to trace a route you send a packet with a max hop count of 1, and get
a packet back from your router, and that tells you the router IP. Then
you send one with a max hop count of 2 and get an error packet back from
the next router upstream, telling you its IP address. And so on.
Plenty of network routers do not respond to pings and do not return
these error packets - they just drop the packet on the floor. These just
show up as gaps in the traceroute, because traceroute does not receive
the ICMP response from the routers at that hop count.
So what you see below is normal. Don't sweat it. Here's an example from
where I'm sitting to a host on a TPG network:
traceroute to ************ (14.203.40.46), 64 hops max, 52 byte
packets
1 cskk-3g (10.0.0.138) 2.220 ms 1.824 ms 1.716 ms
2 * * *
3 10.4.37.50 (10.4.37.50) 31.144 ms 26.018 ms 55.897 ms
4 10.5.86.65 (10.5.86.65) 33.860 ms 34.792 ms 36.855 ms
5 10.5.86.72 (10.5.86.72) 49.968 ms 41.517 ms 30.999 ms
6 203.50.63.96 (203.50.63.96) 35.888 ms 34.900 ms 26.032 ms
7 bundle-ether26.chw-core10.sydney.telstra.net (203.50.61.96)
27.825
ms 31.547 ms 31.129 ms
8 bundle-ether1.chw-edge903.sydney.telstra.net (203.50.11.177)
28.825
ms 32.709 ms 35.956 ms
9 aap3461251.lnk.telstra.net (110.145.180.218) 30.886 ms 25.857
ms
29.599 ms
10 syd-sot-ken-wgw1-be-30.tpgi.com.au (203.219.107.193) 29.719 ms
28.821 ms 28.611 ms
11 203-221-3-109.tpgi.com.au (203.221.3.109) 33.221 ms 31.921 ms
203-221-3-45.tpgi.com.au (203.221.3.45) 40.022 ms
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)cskk.id.au>
On 25Mar2022 19:29, Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
>
>i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing
>after att update
>the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
>
>i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248,
>108.220.213.121 is the external ip for the server.
>
>the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd party
>router, netgear nighthawk,
>
>the internal 10.0.0.0/ connects to the netgear nighthawk
>
>ATT's broadband configuration is
>
> Blackhole-ATT (wireless name)
>
> Broadband connection source DSL
> Broadband connection up
> Broadband network type lightspeed
> Broadband ipv4 address 108.90.204.76
> Broadband gateway address 108.90.204.1
>
>outbound packets from the server (WS), are routed from the 10.0.0.1
>nighthawk to the ATT router to the internet.
>
>the 108.90.204.0 network routing from the att router to the att's gateway.
>.76 is the router, .1 is the GW.
>
>sample route, ...
>
>10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (internal IP) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
>10.0.0.1 Blackhole-NH 2
>packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1018ms
>192.168.1.254 Blackhole-ATT 2
>packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>108.90.204.76 att subnet (local router) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1002ms
>108.90.204.1 att subnet (remote GW) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>108.220.213.121 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (public IP) 2 packets
transmitted,
>2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>108.220.213.126 linuxlighthouse (public GW) 2 packets
>transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
>
>now the mystery. where 108.220.213.121 is a publicly visible ip for the
>server, a remote traceroute is wonky!!
>
>consider the below traceroute, it reports hops up to 108.90.204.76,
>stopping there instead of doing one more hop
>
>
> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Linksys35675 [192.168.1.1]
> 2 9 ms 8 ms 17 ms 142-254-236-209.inf.spectrum.com
>[142.254.236.209]
> 3 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms lag-63.tjngcaac01h.netops.charter.com
>[24.30.172.49]
> 4 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms lag-29.lsaicaev01r.netops.charter.com
>[72.129.18.240]
> 5 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms lag-26.lsancarc01r.netops.charter.com
>[72.129.17.0]
> 6 19 ms 13 ms 14 ms
lag-16.lsancarc0yw-bcr00.netops.charter.com
>[66.109.6.102]
> 7 25 ms 37 ms 42 ms lag-3.pr2.lax10.netops.charter.com
>[107.14.19.41]
> 8 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms 192.205.32.253
> 9 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.128.102]
> 10 24 ms 25 ms 25 ms 12.122.158.41
> 11 * * * Request timed out.
> 12 * * * Request timed out.
> 13 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms 99.134.39.15
> 14 25 ms 24 ms 26 ms 99.161.44.79
> 15 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms
>108-90-204-76.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [108.90.204.76]
> 16 * * * Request timed out.
> 17 * * * Request timed out.
> 18 * * * Request timed out.
> 19
>
>
>could anyone shed some light on this mystery??
>
>tia,jackc...
ok, thx!!
its verifies the direction i am headed...
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
7:27 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 23:30, Jack Craig <jack.craig.aptos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
i have a networking mystery ; i hope someone might give me a clue.
i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing
after att update
the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
Did it come with manuals (or URL's for manuals)?
Arris BGW210-700 Broadband Gateway User Manual and Admin Help - Manuals+
<https://manuals.plus/arris/arris-bgw210-700-broadband-gateway-user-manual...
has:
The BGW210-700 Broadband Gateway hardware platform can host different
software.
The Advanced Residential Gateway supports VoIP, IPv6, video delivery,
security firewall,
and extensive remote management features. The BGW210-700 Broadband Gateway
delivers robust video, primary line telephony, and high-speed data over
broadband networks
via high-speed Internet connectivity. The four Gigabit Ethernet ports can
be separated into
different services allowing the configuration of dedicated ports for data.
The Ask ARRIS web site gives you web access to service and support tools.
You will
need to register using your support contract ID and email address. Ask
ARRIS is located at:
http://www.arris.com/support
Unless another community member has encountered the same hardware and use
case, you
are going to need a proper technical manual.
i have a static ip from att in the range
108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248,
108.220.213.121 is the external ip for the server.
the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd party
router, netgear nighthawk,
You might be able to relegate firewall duties to the NetGear box:
Bridge-mode vs IP Pass-through - Setup Information | AT&T Community Forums
(att.com)
<https://forums.att.com/conversations/att-internet-equipment/bridgemode-vs...
[...]
--
George N. White III
8:02 p.m.
On 3/25/22 19:29, Jack Craig wrote:
i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is
failing
after att update
the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248
<http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>;, 108.220.213.121 is the external
ip for the server.
the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd
party router, netgear nighthawk,
the internal 10.0.0.0/ <http://10.0.0.0/> connects to the netgear nighthawk
I'm going to try to coalesce the bits of information from various
emails, but it's still mostly blanks...
Is the BGW210 connected via DSL or the Optical uplink port?
You have a static IP subnet which should be
108.220.213.120/255.255.255.248 as explained by Richard.
Are you wanting to use multiple addresses?
Do you want a computer on your network to use one of those public
addresses or are you just trying to port forward from one of those
addresses?
There are a few ways to do those options.
Where is the web server located in your network?
Would you be willing to move it to a different section?
Are you using the wifi from both the BGW210 and the Nighthawk?
If so, do they have different SSIDs?
Do you have the Nighthawk connected to the BGW210 using the WAN port or
a LAN port?
I'm guessing it's the WAN port because you have both a 192.168.x.x
subnet (I assume that's the BGW210 LAN) and a 10.0.x.x subnet (I assume
that's the Nighthawk LAN). You would be better off connecting the
Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the Nighthawk's LAN ports instead,
so you only have one private subnet. But this also depends on the
answers to the questions about using the multiple public addresses.
10:09 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 6:06 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> wrote:
On 3/25/22 19:29, Jack Craig wrote:
> i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is failing
> after att update
> the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
>
> i have a static ip from att in the range 108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248
> <http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>;, 108.220.213.121 is the external
> ip for the server.
>
> the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd
> party router, netgear nighthawk,
>
> the internal 10.0.0.0/ <http://10.0.0.0/> connects to the netgear
nighthawk
I'm going to try to coalesce the bits of information from various
emails, but it's still mostly blanks...
Is the BGW210 connected via DSL or the Optical uplink port?
no, (and i hope to have pix in the am), the bgw210770 lan port 1 of 4,
connects
to nighthawk internet port of the nighthawk. a nighthawk lan port is used
to connect 16 port switch.
all the internal hosts, including the intended web server is plugged into
that switch.
You have a static IP subnet which should be
108.220.213.120/255.255.255.248 as explained by Richard.
yes, i accept my error in that ip/subnet map.
Are you wanting to use multiple addresses?
att supports only 1 ip exposed ip so i didnt expect an option for more
than 1.
Do you want a computer on your network to use one of those public
addresses or are you just trying to port forward from one of those
addresses?
There are a few ways to do those options.
an earlier suggestion was to plug the srvr into the bgw210700
as well as the nighthawk. i've been looking to update my configuration
Where is the web server located in your network?
well, 10.0.0.101 is the internal ip for the web server. 108.220.213.121 is
the external ip for that same web server.
Would you be willing to move it to a different section?
yes. clearly my approach is not happening; i trust the respondents on this
thread; if y'all said stand on my head, i'd try.. ;)
Are you using the wifi from both the BGW210 and the Nighthawk?
If so, do they have different SSIDs?
blackhole-nh is the nighthawk, blackhole-att is the bgw210700
Do you have the Nighthawk connected to the BGW210 using the WAN port or
a LAN port?
lan port 1.
I'm guessing it's the WAN port because you have both a
192.168.x.x
subnet (I assume that's the BGW210 LAN) and a 10.0.x.x subnet (I assume
that's the Nighthawk LAN). You would be better off connecting the
Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the Nighthawk's LAN ports instead,
so you only have one private subnet. But this also depends on the
answers to the questions about using the multiple public addresses.
Your suggestion makes sense. i just need to get router access from this
configuration.
the current setup allows my firefox session to access both 10.0.0.1 &
192.168.1.254
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
2:50 a.m.
On 4/3/22 20:09, Jack Craig wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 6:06 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net
<mailto:samuel@sieb.net>> wrote:
On 3/25/22 19:29, Jack Craig wrote:
> i am working to restore a web server to internet access that is
failing
> after att update
> the att older modem (pace 5238ac) with arris BGW210-700.
>
> i have a static ip from att in the range
108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248 <http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>
> <http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248
<http://108.220.213.0/255.255.255.248>>;, 108.220.213.121 is the
external
> ip for the server.
>
> the bgw210-700 is the primary router/modem and is connected to a 3rd
> party router, netgear nighthawk,
>
> the internal 10.0.0.0/ <http://10.0.0.0/> <http://10.0.0.0/
<http://10.0.0.0/>> connects to the netgear nighthawk
I'm going to try to coalesce the bits of information from various
emails, but it's still mostly blanks...
Is the BGW210 connected via DSL or the Optical uplink port?
no, (and i hope to have pix in the am), the bgw210770 lan port 1 of 4,
connects
to nighthawk internet port of the nighthawk. a nighthawk lan port is
used to connect 16 port switch.
all the internal hosts, including the intended web server is plugged
into that switch.
That was not a yes/no question. You have to be connected to the
upstream through one of those.
You have a static IP subnet which should be
108.220.213.120/255.255.255.248
<http://108.220.213.120/255.255.255.248> as explained by Richard.
yes, i accept my error in that ip/subnet map.
Are you wanting to use multiple addresses?
att supports only 1 ip exposed ip so i didnt expect an option for more
than 1.
What do you mean by that? You said that you had a static subnet as
discussed in the previous question.
Do you want a computer on your network to use one of those
public
addresses or are you just trying to port forward from one of those
addresses?
There are a few ways to do those options.
an earlier suggestion was to plug the srvr into the bgw210700
as well as the nighthawk. i've been looking to update my configuration
Without more extensive changes, that would be the easiest solution
instead of trying to port forward through two NAT interfaces.
Where is the web server located in your network?
well, 10.0.0.101 is the internal ip for the web server. 108.220.213.121
is the external ip for that same web server.
Is that IP address the one on the BGW box? If not, with your current
configuration, there's no way to use that address.
Are you using the wifi from both the BGW210 and the Nighthawk?
If so, do they have different SSIDs?
blackhole-nh is the nighthawk, blackhole-att is the bgw210700
Do you use both of those? So you have to switch SSIDs when you move
around your house?
Do you have the Nighthawk connected to the BGW210 using the WAN
port or
a LAN port?
lan port 1.
I see now that my question was ambiguous. I meant which port on the
Nighthawk did you connect to the BGW210 LAN port?
I'm guessing it's the WAN port because you have both a
192.168.x.x
subnet (I assume that's the BGW210 LAN) and a 10.0.x.x subnet (I assume
that's the Nighthawk LAN). You would be better off connecting the
Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the Nighthawk's LAN ports instead,
so you only have one private subnet. But this also depends on the
answers to the questions about using the multiple public addresses.
Your suggestion makes sense. i just need to get router access from
this configuration.
the current setup allows my firefox session to access both 10.0.0.1 &
192.168.1.254
If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN ports on
the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and you
could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to disable the
DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give the Nighthawk
a static IP address on the LAN because they usually don't support
getting it from DHCP.
2:07 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:54 AM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> wrote:
If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN ports on
the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and you
could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to disable the
DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give the Nighthawk
a static IP address on the LAN because they usually don't support
getting it from DHCP.
*this approach makes sense.*
*also links to hardware images,...*
*you can see access from internet to att rtr, nh rtr, switch with 10.0.0.0
lan addrs*
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NIuvNtE9dOyUZeW96D-i3En5e9p_Ggrb/view?usp=sharing
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NIuvNtE9dOyUZeW96D-i3En5e9p_Ggrb/view?us...
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mQ3-kYqSEQIKhsFjTTGTuWyRN-kg4WGp/view?usp=sharing
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mQ3-kYqSEQIKhsFjTTGTuWyRN-kg4WGp/view?us...
*so to implement this change, *
*1. update networkmanager to assign 108.220.213.121 to the server(currently
10.0.0.101) and plug it into the att rtr*
*2. disable dhcp on nh rtr*
*3. enable wifi for 2.4 & 5mhz on the att rtr*
*4. set up a static ip for nh rtr on the 192.168.1.0*
*5. plug nh rtr into the att rtr leaving switch attached to the nh rtr*
*acknowledging my reduced skill in this endeavour, have i included all
necessary steps and in the right order??*
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
5:16 p.m.
On 05/04/2022 03:07, Jack Craig wrote:
*you can see access from internet to att rtr, nh rtr, switch with
10.0.0.0 lan addrs
*
*
*
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NIuvNtE9dOyUZeW96D-i3En5e9p_Ggrb/view?usp=sharing*
*
*
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mQ3-kYqSEQIKhsFjTTGTuWyRN-kg4WGp/view?usp=sharing*
*
*
Access denied for both those links.
Also, seems as if you DNS has finally timed out....
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ whois linuxlighthouse.com
[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]
[Redirected to whois.networksolutions.com]
[Querying whois.networksolutions.com]
[Unable to connect to remote host]
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ host ws.linuxlighthouse.com
Host ws.linuxlighthouse.com not found: 2(SERVFAIL)
And, of course, http://ws.linuxlighthouse.com/ cannot be reached.
--
Did 황준호 die?
5:33 p.m.
On 4/4/22 12:07, Jack Craig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:54 AM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net
<mailto:samuel@sieb.net>> wrote:
If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN
ports on
the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and you
could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to disable the
DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give the Nighthawk
a static IP address on the LAN because they usually don't support
getting it from DHCP.
*
*
*this approach makes sense.*
*so to implement this change,
*
*1. update networkmanager to assign 108.220.213.121 to the
server(currently 10.0.0.101) and plug it into the att rtr*
You can't use that IP address unless you make some major changes to the
config on the ATT router. And if those changes aren't made correctly,
you would lose all internet access. I hope you aren't paying extra for
the subnet vs a single static address.
You need to give a static 192.168.1.x address to the server. Make sure
that the static addresses you are using are outside the range of the
DHCP server.
*2. disable dhcp on nh rtr*
yes
*3. enable wifi for 2.4 & 5mhz on the att rtr*
I thought you were already using it. You can use the same SSID on both
routers after this rearrangement.
*4. set up a static ip for nh rtr on the 192.168.1.0*
yes. Make sure you're setting the LAN address, not the WAN address.
*5. plug nh rtr into the att rtr leaving switch attached to the nh
rtr*
The switch can be plugged into either router, since it's all one subnet
now. The NH WAN port should not be connected to anything.
Once this is all done, you can configure a port forward on the ATT
router to access the web server.
12:47 a.m.
On 4/4/22 00:50, Samuel Sieb wrote:
If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN ports
on the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and
you could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to
disable the DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give
the Nighthawk a static IP address on the LAN because they usually
don't support getting it from DHCP.
At that point the Nighthawk would be just another switch, which doesn't
seem helpful *or* secure.
2:19 a.m.
On 4/4/22 22:47, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 4/4/22 00:50, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN ports
> on the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and
> you could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to
> disable the DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give
> the Nighthawk a static IP address on the LAN because they usually
> don't support getting it from DHCP.
At that point the Nighthawk would be just another switch, which doesn't
seem helpful *or* secure.
It's helpful because he needed more wireless coverage. At least that
was my understanding. The BGW210 is already doing NAT, so there's no
further security (and much complication) to be gained with a second NAT.
If he doesn't need the extra wifi, then the Nighthawk is redundant.
6:18 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 02:47, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/4/22 00:50, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN ports
> on the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and
> you could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to
> disable the DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give
> the Nighthawk a static IP address on the LAN because they usually
> don't support getting it from DHCP.
At that point the Nighthawk would be just another switch, which doesn't
seem helpful *or* secure.
The Nighthawk also provides a wifi access point.
--
George N. White III
6:28 p.m.
this mystery has been resolved and my server is online.
i am profusely grateful for the wisdom of folks on this list including,
Ed, Samuel, George, Tim, Gordon, Richard, and Cameron.
thanks, jackc...
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:19 AM George N. White III <gnwiii(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 02:47, Gordon Messmer
<gordon.messmer(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/4/22 00:50, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > If you connect the Nighthawk to the BGW210 using one of the LAN ports
> > on the Nighthawk, everything would be on the 192.168.1.x subnet and
> > you could use the same SSID on both devices. You would need to
> > disable the DHCP server on the Nighthawk and most likely need to give
> > the Nighthawk a static IP address on the LAN because they usually
> > don't support getting it from DHCP.
>
>
> At that point the Nighthawk would be just another switch, which doesn't
> seem helpful *or* secure.
>
The Nighthawk also provides a wifi access point.
--
George N. White III
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
8:36 p.m.
On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 16:28 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
this mystery has been resolved and my server is online.
I just tried. Initially the browser was unable to connect. But after
a few retries it could.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.62.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Apr 5 16:57:59 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
9:13 p.m.
i'll be surprised if there arent a few tweaks still, but i can get back to
drone footage capture..
Thx again, ...
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 6:36 PM Tim via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 16:28 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
> this mystery has been resolved and my server is online.
I just tried. Initially the browser was unable to connect. But after
a few retries it could.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.62.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Apr 5 16:57:59 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
2:57 p.m.
Now that my network mystery has been resolved, I thought I would explain my
challenges.
for this to make sense I need to add a bit of backstory.
my problem started about 12 months ago, I had purchased an static IP
block from AT&T and
the bandwidth package. it was fairly small but it worked with a pace
5238ac
modem Router from AT&T and it was working OK. it didn't have much in the
way of
lan control; I wanted better Wi-Fi and better lan client control .
so I went out and bought a nighthawk and started connecting it in a
cascade to the
Internet where the nighthawk backed up the AT&T router .
come January this year I was looking at bandwidth short fall and decided
to get an upgrade
I ordered the upgraded bandwidth package and it was installed in early
February.
when the AT&T tech did
that installation, he swapped out the pace router for the arris BGW210-700
router
and all hell broke loose.
For almost a month I had been trying to get that cascade working from the
BGW210-700 to the Nighthawk. I explored
Google, mfgr docs, i looked everywhere trying to find samples of how
to make it work.
from all I read it should have worked but I couldn't get it to
It was at this point that I decided to appeal to the users on the fedora
list and several gentlemen
were kind enough to help me clear the mist from my path as it were.
for a while we tried to get the cascading to work with no joy. I decided
to bite the bullet pull
the nighthawk out of the loop and just live with the AT&T router
The next couple of weeks I moved old router lan clients to the new router
topology.
I got my lan clients moved over, I also got the static IP visible to the
world but still I
could not connect the internet to my web server.
The last clue in the puzzle came from port examining from firewalls out to
the Internet
why was I not connecting??
I found this nifty tool in the world from some company called getsignal .
it would look at
your ports from the outside and tell you their status. so I keyed in HTTP
and Https ports and
sure enough from the Internet they were blocked
At this point all that remained was to use the port mapping and service
creation on the
AT&T router to map the external wan side ports to the lan web server and
it worked.
I renewed my letsencrypt certs and I am on down the road.
i even got my 'A' from my qualys ssl test! {Yeah}
Once again thanks to all that assisted me on this horrendous ride
but it's working now thank you again very much
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:07 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2022 07:28, Jack Craig wrote:
> this mystery has been resolved and my server is online.
Is the solution easy to describe?
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:15 a.m.
On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 12:57 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
I found this nifty tool in the world from some company called
getsignal. it would look at your ports from the outside and tell you
their status. so I keyed in HTTP and Https ports and sure enough from
the Internet they were blocked
There's a few port scanning services around. Since you're now exposed
on the internet, it's well worth checking a few other potentially
exploitable ports.
If it finds any, (1) reconfigure the service to not listen to
connections it shouldn't to, (2) configure your firewall to block them
as well. Point 1 is far more important than point 2, it applies all
the time, the firewall only works when you let it.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.62.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Apr 5 16:57:59 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
4:41 a.m.
i sent a reply to the question of what was the mystery ,
but I don't see it on the thread did you get it?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:07 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2022 07:28, Jack Craig wrote:
> this mystery has been resolved and my server is online.
Is the solution easy to describe?
--
Did 황준호 die?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
8:25 a.m.
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 02:41 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
i sent a reply to the question of what was the mystery ,
but I don't see it on the thread did you get it?
It came through to the list. If you're reading in gmail, it's probably
doing that thing where it doesn't show messages to your own address
from your own address.
I just started doing that to me, again. It's not such as odd thing to
do as people might think: How do you test your email is working? Send
yourself a message. Now, you need a second address to send tests from.
And, as you've probably discovered, if your posts to mailing lists
don't come back to you, it's confusing.
You can look for it in here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users%40lists.fedoraproject...
But after scrolling through page after page of chaos, I gave up. I
couldn't see any obvious way to collapse all the messages into a list.
But I'm not signed into it, and there may be more features if logged
in.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.62.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Apr 5 16:57:59 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
11:45 a.m.
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 22:55 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 02:41 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
> i sent a reply to the question of what was the mystery ,
> but I don't see it on the thread did you get it?
It came through to the list. If you're reading in gmail, it's
probably
doing that thing where it doesn't show messages to your own address
from your own address.
That works for me, as it always has. Just tested it again to be sure.
I just started doing that to me, again. It's not such as odd
thing
to
do as people might think: How do you test your email is working?
Send
yourself a message. Now, you need a second address to send tests
from.
And, as you've probably discovered, if your posts to mailing lists
don't come back to you, it's confusing.
Lists managed by Mailman (which IIRC include the Fedora lists) let the
user specify if they want to receive their own posts. My subscription
to this list is set up that way and I do see them. I think Gmail
doesn't mark them as *new* which may have the effect of hiding them
according to how your view is set up.
poc
1:09 p.m.
i wondered if the list just didnt like me! ;)
as for the mystery solution, after all the support, I figured a summary was
the least i could do...
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 9:45 AM Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 22:55 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 02:41 -0700, Jack Craig wrote:
> > i sent a reply to the question of what was the mystery ,
> > but I don't see it on the thread did you get it?
>
> It came through to the list. If you're reading in gmail, it's
> probably
> doing that thing where it doesn't show messages to your own address
> from your own address.
>
That works for me, as it always has. Just tested it again to be sure.
> I just started doing that to me, again. It's not such as odd thing
> to
> do as people might think: How do you test your email is working?
> Send
> yourself a message. Now, you need a second address to send tests
> from.
>
> And, as you've probably discovered, if your posts to mailing lists
> don't come back to you, it's confusing.
Lists managed by Mailman (which IIRC include the Fedora lists) let the
user specify if they want to receive their own posts. My subscription
to this list is set up that way and I do see them. I think Gmail
doesn't mark them as *new* which may have the effect of hiding them
according to how your view is set up.
poc
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:45 a.m.
On 04/04/2022 09:02, Samuel Sieb wrote:
I'm going to try to coalesce the bits of information from various
emails, but it's still mostly blanks...
Is the BGW210 connected via DSL or the Optical uplink port?
I've basically been following, yet ignoring this thread. As the amount of words make
it difficult for understand the
network topology. It would be correct to say that I'm lost.
I would have thought that the simple act of replacing the ISP supplied equipment the
"pace 5238ac" with the "BGW210-700"
would be transparent. Apparently not.
If I read a latter email correctly, the OP will be posting a link to a network diagram to
make things clear..
I also don't quite understand why a system can't be connected directly to one of
the ports of new "BGW210-700" just
to test that it works. The system could be configured with one of the assigned IPs or
testes with DHCP and see if the new
DSL router assigns an IP.
--
Did 황준호 die?
2:39 a.m.
On 4/3/22 23:45, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/04/2022 09:02, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I'm going to try to coalesce the bits of information from various
> emails, but it's still mostly blanks...
>
> Is the BGW210 connected via DSL or the Optical uplink port?
I've basically been following, yet ignoring this thread. As the amount
of words make it difficult for understand the
network topology. It would be correct to say that I'm lost.
I would have thought that the simple act of replacing the ISP supplied
equipment the "pace 5238ac" with the "BGW210-700"
would be transparent. Apparently not.
Maybe the original box was in bridge mode. This new one doesn't really
have a proper bridge mode, although there are things you can do to kind
of simulate it.
If I read a latter email correctly, the OP will be posting a link to
a
network diagram to make things clear..
I also don't quite understand why a system can't be connected directly
to one of the ports of new "BGW210-700" just
to test that it works. The system could be configured with one of the
assigned IPs or testes with DHCP and see if the new
DSL router assigns an IP.
His second router is connected there and is getting an IP address.
That's the 192.168.x.x range. On the other side of his router is
10.0.x.x. So double NAT which is not great.
10:01 p.m.
Ed Greshko:
I've basically been following, yet ignoring this thread. As the
amount of words make it difficult for understand the
network topology. It would be correct to say that I'm lost.
I've felt the same way, I think this is what I can figure out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4cn_lx6Mc
His internal network seems overly complicated. Any time I've tried
double-natting as an experiment it's hit and miss whether outgoing
stuff works without pain (e.g. browsing the web), but I've never tried
letting something through in the other direction.
I definitely get the impression it'd be easier with one less router.
I kinda get the impression it might be easier not trying to get a PC
inside the LAN to use an external IP, just having the router accept the
external address and forward it through to an internal IP (I've done
that before, as a way of letting someone get a very large file from my
PC). It all depends on how fancy his webserver is going to behave.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 23 16:47:03 UTC 2022 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
1:25 a.m.
If I'm reading this thread correctly, your original setup was as follows:
-----
- 108.90.204.76/24 -> gw: 108.90.204.1
/
arris BGW210-700
\
- 192.168.1.254/24 (Blackhole-ATT WiFi network)
- 108.220.213.126/29
- 108.220.213.121/29 -> gw: 108.220.213.126
/
netgear nighthawk
\
- 10.0.0.1/24
- 10.0.0.101/24 -> gw: 10.0.0.1
/
ws.linuxlighthouse.com
-----
That configuration is completely reasonable. You shouldn't need to
try to use bridge mode, or IP Passthrough, or any other rewiring of
the network.
10.0.0.101 ws.linuxlighthouse.com (internal IP) 2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1033ms
You initially provided some address ping information, but didn't
specify which device was gathering that information. That may be
relevant information, because only a device in the 10.0.0.0/24 network
should have been able to reach all of those addresses. I'm assuming
that the information was gathered from within 10.0.0.0/24.
consider the below traceroute, it reports hops up to 108.90.204.76,
stopping there instead of doing one more hop
For problems of this sort, I generally consider several possibilities:
1: The Arris firewall is not allowing traffic into your network from the public.
2: The Netgear firewall is not allowing ICMP (ping) from the public.
3: The Netgear is configured to redirect (forward) 108.220.213.121 to
your server, but the NAT isn't working correctly.
4: Your Arris modem and Nighthawk router both have addresses in
108.220.213.120/29 set up, but ATT isn't routing that network to you,
and outbound traffic is NATed by the Arris modem.
I think we can discount #1 and #4, since we can ping 108.220.213.126
from the public, but we can also test those things:
You should be able to connect a laptop directly to the Arris modem,
and configure the laptop with the IP address 108.220.213.122, netmask
255.255.255.248, gateway 108.220.213.126. (DNS: 8.8.8.8 if you don't
have another preference.) Once connected, the laptop should have
public internet access. You should be able to access
https://www.whatismyip.com/, and your public IPv4 address as seen by
that page should be 108.220.213.122. Someone outside of your network
should be able to ping and traceroute to that address.
#2 and #3 are harder to test, but if you can verify that another
device is fully functional on another address, then you can at least
focus your attention on the Nighthawk configuration. At that point,
I'd turn off any IP forwarding or DNAT settings you'd configured on
the Nighthawk, and try to turn off the firewall. With the firewall
off, you should be able to ping and tracroute to the Nighthawk from
outside. Next you can try to get any port forwards working, and
finally you can turn the firewall back on and see if NAT still works.
737
days inactive
762
days old
70 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Cameron Simpson -
Ed Greshko -
George N. White III -
Go Canes -
Gordon Messmer -
Jack Craig -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Peter Boy -
Richard -
Richard -
Samuel Sieb -
Tim