Mauro,
problem -> "the red ethernet port does not work properly"
solution -> "try the patch mkresin told you about. it should fix the issue"
John
On 10/02/2017 18:44, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
> John,
>
>
> To summarize, with my use case scenarios I am trying to make the point
> that the effort to make the Red Ethernet behave as a WAN does not have
> to be a priority because it is the least useful case on this router.
>
> The priority should be:
>
> 1) to make it usable as another Ethernet interface (name it LAN2, EWAN,
> XWAN does not matter) appearing by default in the list of interfaces on
> a fresh install.
> 2) as every interface, it should be possible to BRIDGE Red Ethernet to
> other interfaces like LAN.
>
> (1) is already achievable, but manually configuring files that will get
> overwritten if not saved (/etc/board.json) and using a
> counter-intuitive, not listed (in luci) device name that confuses end
> users.
> (2) to date my attempts to bridge the interface to another interface
> (LAN) have failed as reported in FS#390.
>
> On 10/02/17 13:57, John Crispin wrote:
>>
>> On 10/02/2017 14:01, Mauro M. wrote:
>>> In response to Mathias:
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's have a look at the use cases for the Red Ethernet Port:
>>>
>>> 1) Classic case: Internet Home user with xDSL WAN + Wired and Wireless
>>> Devices
>>>
>>> SCENARIO: In this case my WAN is the xDSL port, my router has 4 Ethernet
>>> (yellow) ports, but I have 5 devices, so I want to BRIDGE my Red
>>> Ethernet to extend the available Yellow Ethernet (LAN) ports
>>>
>>> STATUS: this does not work today, see FS#390
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Small Office User with xDSL and Fixed IP Subnet
>>>
>>> SCENARIO: In this case I have to disable Masquerading for my servers on
>>> the subnet to be addressable, also in this use case scenario I have 5 or
>>> more wired servers and I want to extend my switch to bridge the Red
>>> Ethernet port
>>>
>>> STATUS: as above this does not work today FS#390
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) Small Office User Intranet: this extends SCENARIO 2
>>>
>>> SCENARIO: I use a second router, the Red Ethernet (that I name "ewan")
>>> is connected to my router at (2) and is assigned a fixed IP on the
>>> subnet. The Yellow Ethernet switch is bridged to WiFi as "LAN". The
>>> firewall is configured to SNAT LAN to EWAN.
>>>
>>> STATUS: today this works by editing /etc/board.json to add port 5 to the
>>> switch, adding a new VLAN to Switch0 to cover port 5, creating a new
>>> network interface EWAN. However it works only if I create a bridge
>>> br-ewan and I add eth1.2 to it, it does not work if I configure eth1.2
>>> directly to EWAN. I would like eth1.2 to be available in the list of
>>> interfaces (now I have to "know" that it exists and I have to configure
>>> it manually). Newbies might bang their head trying to use eth0.2 which
>>> is created by the additional VLAN, but it does not work.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4) Small Office Multi Wan: this extends SCENARIO 2 and 3
>>>
>>> SCENARIO: I have 2 xDSL WANs, one is as at (2), the second is an xDSL.
>>> The WAN port on my router is configured as ADSL with
>>> pppoa-wan/pppoe-wan. The EWAN is connected to a router with Internet
>>> access and is assigned a fixed WAN IP.
>>>
>>> STATUS: as per SCENARIO 3, the Red Ethernet is configured manually by
>>> editing /etc/board.json
>>>
>>>
>>> 5) WiFi repeater: I configure the router just as a WiFi repeater, I need
>>> extra wired ports and I want to bridge the Red Ethernet to my LAN
>>>
>>> STATUS: as per SCENARIO 1 and 2
>>>
>>>
>>> 6) Home or Office user with separate xDSL Modem
>>>
>>> SCENARIO: I have an xDSL modem and I want to use pppoe over the Red
>>> Ethernet
>>>
>>> STATUS: I have never tried this scenario, but I believe this is what is
>>> covered by the default configuration on most routers with Ethernet WAN
>>> (I wonder why since I find this the least useful use case) and thus it
>>> is supposed to work
>>>
>>>
>>> SCENARIO 3 and 4 describe what are my current use cases
>>>
>>> In my 2 use cases it does not really matter whether the Red Ethernet is
>>> recognized as WAN. In case 3 it is sufficient that it is configurable
>>> with an IP, thus, whatever the name we give the interface, I would like
>>> it to appear by default on a fresh firmware install. To support CASES 1,
>>> 2 and 5, where I want to bridge my Red Ethernet to extend the ports on
>>> the switch, I need this to work (FS#390)
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Mauro
>>>
>>>
>> tl;dr can you try to be more precise and reduce this to the statement
>> you actually want to make please ?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
