Groups > linux.debian.user > #193556 > unrolled thread

Help needed with home network configuration

Started by	Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com>
First post	2018-03-09 15:40 +0100
Last post	2018-03-10 10:20 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 46 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

  Help needed with home network configuration Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:40 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:20 +0100
      Re: Help needed with home network configuration Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-03-09 18:40 +0100
        Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-15 03:30 +0100
          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-03-15 06:20 +0100
          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-03-15 18:20 +0100
            Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 02:50 +0100
              Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 04:30 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-16 09:50 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 14:00 +0100
                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 14:10 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-16 14:30 +0100
                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 00:30 +0200
                      Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-03 13:50 +0200
                        Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 19:40 +0200
                          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-06 12:20 +0200
                            Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-06 16:50 +0200
                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-06 18:40 +0200
                                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-07 16:00 +0200
                                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-07 22:30 +0200
                                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-08 02:00 +0200
                                      Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-08 02:50 +0200
                                        Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:10 +0200
                                          Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-09 12:40 +0200
                                            Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-04-13 16:20 +0200
                                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 10:00 +0200
                                                Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-15 13:40 +0200
                                                Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 14:10 +0200
                                                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 18:50 +0200
                                                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 00:50 +0200
                                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-15 13:30 +0200
                            Re: Help needed with home network configuration Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:00 +0200
                              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-04-09 12:30 +0200
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 17:20 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 15:40 +0100
              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-16 14:20 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 17:10 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-19 12:00 +0100
              Re: Help needed with home network configuration Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-03-16 18:30 +0100
                Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-16 20:20 +0100
                  Re: Help needed with home network configuration Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-03-16 21:00 +0100
                    Re: Help needed with home network configuration David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-17 00:50 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-09 17:30 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2018-03-09 20:30 +0100
    Re: Help needed with home network configuration Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 10:10 +0100
      Re: Help needed with home network configuration <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-03-10 10:20 +0100

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →

#193556 — Help needed with home network configuration

From	Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com>
Date	2018-03-09 15:40 +0100
Subject	Help needed with home network configuration
Message-ID	<vrrlE-6iv-5@gated-at.bofh.it>

For many years I have used my desktp as a network/firewall server with
two interfaces one facing the internet (through ADSL) and the other the
local network.

Now I have a fibre connection and for a month both connections will be
available in parallel.

I have decided to use my Raspberry Pi3 as the firewall/network server in
future but have after many hours failed to do so successfully.

First I have tried a similar Shorewall setup that I have on my desktop
and after failing successful connections I tried ufw with no success.

First ufw:

$ sudo ufw status verbose
Status: active
Logging: on (low)
Default: deny (incoming), allow (outgoing)
New profiles: skip

To                         Action      From
--                         ------      ----
Anywhere                   ALLOW IN    192.168.0.0/24

Anywhere                   ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
53/udp                     ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
443/tcp                    ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24

(Ihave added the last two lines which I thought should not be
necessary).

I get this in the log:

Mar  9 12:14:15 pi3 kernel: [403782.469448] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0
OUT=eth1 MAC=b8:27:eb:63:94:ea:1c:5a:3e:e0:29:fe:08:00:45:00:00:3c:50:e8:40:00:3f:06:fb:f2
SRC=192.168.0.10 DST=207.36.95.10 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=63
ID=20712 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=53337 DPT=443 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN
URGP=0

My shorewall configuration:

Zones

#ZONE   TYPE    OPTIONS                 IN                      OUT
#                                       OPTIONS                 OPTIONS
fw      firewall
net     ipv4
loc     ipv4

Interfaces
#ZONE   INTERFACE       BROADCAST       OPTIONS
loc     eth0            detect
tcpflags,nosmurfs,routefilter,logmartians
net    eth1            detect
tcpflags,nosmurfs,routefilter,logmartians

Policy

#SOURCE         DEST            POLICY          LOG LEVEL       LIMIT:BURST

loc             $FW             ACCEPT
$FW             loc             ACCEPT
$FW             net             ACCEPT
loc             net             ACCEPT
net             all             DROP            info
# THE FOLLOWING POLICY MUST BE LAST
all             all             REJECT          info

snat

#ACTION         SOURCE          DEST            PROTO   PORT   IPSEC
MARK   USER    SWITCH  ORIGDEST   PROBABILITY
#
# Rules generated from masq file /etc/shorewall/masq by Shorewall
5.0.15.2 - Fri Feb 24 08:52:03 SAST 2017
#
MASQUERADE      192.168.0.0/24  eth1

Rules

DNS(ACCEPT)     $FW             net
SSH(ACCEPT)     loc             $FW
SSH(ACCEPT)     $FW             loc
SSH(ACCEPT)     $FW             net
SSH(ACCEPT)     loc             net
HTTP(ACCEPT)     $FW            net
HTTPS(ACCEPT)     $FW           net
FTP(ACCEPT)     $FW             net
FTP(ACCEPT)     loc             $FW
SMTP(ACCEPT)    loc             $FW
SMTP(ACCEPT)    $FW             net:195.190.146.50
DNS(ACCEPT)     loc             $FW
Ping(DROP)      net             $FW
Ping(ACCEPT)    loc             $FW
ACCEPT          loc             net             icmp
ACCEPT          $FW             net             icmp
ACCEPT          $FW             loc             icmp

In sysctl.conf I have

net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians = 1

$ sudo ifconfig
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr b8:27:eb:63:94:ea
          inet addr:192.168.0.9  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::dbe4:63c:a02b:cb1e/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:11223527 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:4414187 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:3648814410 (3.3 GiB)  TX bytes:381642127 (363.9 MiB)

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:e0:4c:20:bf:5d
          inet addr:192.168.1.249  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::9d48:f754:2113:9a80/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:103887 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:91137 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:124760139 (118.9 MiB)  TX bytes:13325394 (12.7 MiB)

$ ip route ls
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1  metric 204
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.0.9
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.249
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.249  metric 204


I really do not know the way forward from here.  Help will be
appreciated.

Regards
Johann


-- 
Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself,
my lips will praise you.  (Psalm 63:3)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#193557

From	Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com>
Date	2018-03-09 16:20 +0100
Message-ID	<vrrYm-6Lh-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193556

	Hi.

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:30:53PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> For many years I have used my desktp as a network/firewall server with
> two interfaces one facing the internet (through ADSL) and the other the
> local network.
> 
> Now I have a fibre connection and for a month both connections will be
> available in parallel.
> 
> I have decided to use my Raspberry Pi3 as the firewall/network server in
> future but have after many hours failed to do so successfully.

A suboptimal idea IMO. These Broadcom chipsets are only good for video
output, their 100Mbps "Ethernet" is actually hardwired to USB, and their
WiFi is a PITA (I used Raspberry Pi3 as WiFi AP for half a year. Never
again). They make good SPI programmers though.

If you need a good Debian-friendly router, I suggest buying Linksys ACM
1200, 1900 or 3200.


> First I have tried a similar Shorewall setup that I have on my desktop
> and after failing successful connections I tried ufw with no success.
> 
> First ufw:
> 
> $ sudo ufw status verbose
> Status: active
> Logging: on (low)
> Default: deny (incoming), allow (outgoing)
> New profiles: skip
> 
> To                         Action      From
> --                         ------      ----
> Anywhere                   ALLOW IN    192.168.0.0/24
> 
> Anywhere                   ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
> 53/udp                     ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
> 443/tcp                    ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
> 
> (Ihave added the last two lines which I thought should not be
> necessary).
> 
> I get this in the log:
> 
> Mar  9 12:14:15 pi3 kernel: [403782.469448] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0
> OUT=eth1 MAC=b8:27:eb:63:94:ea:1c:5a:3e:e0:29:fe:08:00:45:00:00:3c:50:e8:40:00:3f:06:fb:f2
> SRC=192.168.0.10 DST=207.36.95.10 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=63
> ID=20712 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=53337 DPT=443 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN
> URGP=0

An "iptables-save" output would be welcome. There are many frontends to
netfilter, but nothing beats the original "iptables".

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193560

From	Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
Date	2018-03-09 18:40 +0100
Message-ID	<vru9P-88Y-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193557

On Friday 09 March 2018 10:18:23 Reco wrote:

> 	Hi.
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:30:53PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> > For many years I have used my desktp as a network/firewall server
> > with two interfaces one facing the internet (through ADSL) and the
> > other the local network.
> >
> > Now I have a fibre connection and for a month both connections will
> > be available in parallel.
> >
> > I have decided to use my Raspberry Pi3 as the firewall/network
> > server in future but have after many hours failed to do so
> > successfully.
>
> A suboptimal idea IMO. These Broadcom chipsets are only good for video
> output, their 100Mbps "Ethernet" is actually hardwired to USB, and
> their WiFi is a PITA (I used Raspberry Pi3 as WiFi AP for half a year.
> Never again). They make good SPI programmers though.
>
> If you need a good Debian-friendly router, I suggest buying Linksys
> ACM 1200, 1900 or 3200.

I will also highly recommend the higher end Buffalo's. I have a $70 mail 
order Netfinity, now quite a few years old, reprogrammed with the real 
dd-wrt. It has bounced every attack now for around 8 years. And I mean 
every. I do not have its radio enabled unless my boys are on site with 
their smartphones. And its not bridged to my local net anyway, only to 
the internet.

> > First I have tried a similar Shorewall setup that I have on my
> > desktop and after failing successful connections I tried ufw with no
> > success.
> >
> > First ufw:
> >
> > $ sudo ufw status verbose
> > Status: active
> > Logging: on (low)
> > Default: deny (incoming), allow (outgoing)
> > New profiles: skip
> >
> > To                         Action      From
> > --                         ------      ----
> > Anywhere                   ALLOW IN    192.168.0.0/24
> >
> > Anywhere                   ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
> > 53/udp                     ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
> > 443/tcp                    ALLOW OUT   192.168.0.0/24
> >
> > (Ihave added the last two lines which I thought should not be
> > necessary).
> >
> > I get this in the log:
> >
> > Mar  9 12:14:15 pi3 kernel: [403782.469448] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0
> > OUT=eth1
> > MAC=b8:27:eb:63:94:ea:1c:5a:3e:e0:29:fe:08:00:45:00:00:3c:50:e8:40:0
> >0:3f:06:fb:f2 SRC=192.168.0.10 DST=207.36.95.10 LEN=60 TOS=0x00
> > PREC=0x00 TTL=63 ID=20712 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=53337 DPT=443 WINDOW=5840
> > RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0
>
> An "iptables-save" output would be welcome. There are many frontends
> to netfilter, but nothing beats the original "iptables".
>
> Reco



-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193810

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-03-15 03:30 +0100
Message-ID	<vtqOt-4Do-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193560

On Fri 09 Mar 2018 at 12:31:35 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2018 10:18:23 Reco wrote:
> 
> > 	Hi.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:30:53PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> > > For many years I have used my desktp as a network/firewall server
> > > with two interfaces one facing the internet (through ADSL) and the
> > > other the local network.
> > >
> > > Now I have a fibre connection and for a month both connections will
> > > be available in parallel.
> > >
> > > I have decided to use my Raspberry Pi3 as the firewall/network
> > > server in future but have after many hours failed to do so
> > > successfully.
> >
> > A suboptimal idea IMO. These Broadcom chipsets are only good for video
> > output, their 100Mbps "Ethernet" is actually hardwired to USB, and
> > their WiFi is a PITA (I used Raspberry Pi3 as WiFi AP for half a year.
> > Never again). They make good SPI programmers though.
> >
> > If you need a good Debian-friendly router, I suggest buying Linksys
> > ACM 1200, 1900 or 3200.
> 
> I will also highly recommend the higher end Buffalo's. I have a $70 mail 
> order Netfinity, now quite a few years old, reprogrammed with the real 
> dd-wrt. It has bounced every attack now for around 8 years. And I mean 
> every. I do not have its radio enabled unless my boys are on site with 
> their smartphones. And its not bridged to my local net anyway, only to 
> the internet.

When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
for that? Or is wired bridging something that requires certain
hardware inside the box? What's your bridging topology? I though you
might have an article on your website… :)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193815

From	Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
Date	2018-03-15 06:20 +0100
Message-ID	<vttt0-6so-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193810

On Wednesday 14 March 2018 22:24:26 David Wright wrote:

> On Fri 09 Mar 2018 at 12:31:35 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2018 10:18:23 Reco wrote:
> > > 	Hi.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:30:53PM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> > > > For many years I have used my desktp as a network/firewall
> > > > server with two interfaces one facing the internet (through
> > > > ADSL) and the other the local network.
> > > >
> > > > Now I have a fibre connection and for a month both connections
> > > > will be available in parallel.
> > > >
> > > > I have decided to use my Raspberry Pi3 as the firewall/network
> > > > server in future but have after many hours failed to do so
> > > > successfully.
> > >
> > > A suboptimal idea IMO. These Broadcom chipsets are only good for
> > > video output, their 100Mbps "Ethernet" is actually hardwired to
> > > USB, and their WiFi is a PITA (I used Raspberry Pi3 as WiFi AP for
> > > half a year. Never again). They make good SPI programmers though.
> > >
> > > If you need a good Debian-friendly router, I suggest buying
> > > Linksys ACM 1200, 1900 or 3200.
> >
> > I will also highly recommend the higher end Buffalo's. I have a $70
> > mail order Netfinity, now quite a few years old, reprogrammed with
> > the real dd-wrt. It has bounced every attack now for around 8 years.
> > And I mean every. I do not have its radio enabled unless my boys are
> > on site with their smartphones. And its not bridged to my local net
> > anyway, only to the internet.
>
> When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> for that? Or is wired bridging something that requires certain
> hardware inside the box? What's your bridging topology? I though you
> might have an article on your website… :)

With dd-wrt, port forwarding with NAT can be done, a very limited 
bridging, which is how you see my web site. Its actually this machine.

As for the wireless, I only have it bridged to the WAN side of the 
network, but I'm pretty sure it can be bridged in either or both 
directions. So this machine, nor any of the others on my home net are  
not visible to the wireless, only the internet can be used. I don't 
recall how I do it ATM, because 99% of the time the radio is disabled. 
If I enable it, one of the neighbors auto connects and can use 80 GB a 
month w/o giving me a clue unless I am logged into the router annd see 
the connection lease. So I only enable the radio when my boys are in 
town.  Sorry I can't be more specific but its been yonks since I've 
programmed it.

> Cheers,
> David.



-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193838

From	Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
Date	2018-03-15 18:20 +0100
Message-ID	<vtEHL-5EI-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193810

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> for that?

openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).


1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
example.
-- 
Don Armstrong                      https://www.donarmstrong.com

You think to yourself, hey, it's a test tube, for God's sake. Pretty
soon, though, the rush from a test tube isn't enough. You want to
experiment more and more. Then before you know it, you're laying in
the corner of a lab somewhere with a Soxhlet apparatus in one hand,
a three neck flask in the other, strung out and begging for grant
money.
 -- Tim Mitchell, 1994 Ig Nobel Chemistry Prize Speech

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193845

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-03-16 02:50 +0100
Message-ID	<vtMFj-38n-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193838

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> > for that?
> 
> openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
> routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
> 
> 
> 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
> actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
> example.

I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
screen on the device.

In any case, the May 2013 manual says that to use it as a repeater,
even wired, you have to set security to WEP or None. That's no use.

I wandered into BestBuy and couldn't find much about bridging on
any of their router boxes. (Obviously I'm eschewing so-called
WiFi Wireless Repeaters.) What I'm trying to ascertain is that
all the wired bridging functionality is performed by the software
and not any special hardware in the device.

Required topology:

            ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
         ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
         │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
[Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
         │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
         │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
         └───────┘             └───────┘

¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf

(Thanks to Gene, too)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193848

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Date	2018-03-16 04:30 +0100
Message-ID	<vtOe5-4Mg-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193845

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 09:42:25 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:
> > > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to do, say,
> > > wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware doesn't allow
> > > for that?
> > 
> > openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or pseudo-bridging by
> > routing if your wireless hardware doesn't support that).
> > 
> > 
> > 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't support
> > actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see such an
> > example.
> 
> I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> screen on the device.
> 
> In any case, the May 2013 manual says that to use it as a repeater,
> even wired, you have to set security to WEP or None. That's no use.
> 
> I wandered into BestBuy and couldn't find much about bridging on
> any of their router boxes. (Obviously I'm eschewing so-called
> WiFi Wireless Repeaters.) What I'm trying to ascertain is that
> all the wired bridging functionality is performed by the software
> and not any special hardware in the device.
> 
> Required topology:
> 
> 
>             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
>          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
>          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
>          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
>          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
>          └───────┘             └───────┘
> 
> 
> ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf

I haven't paid attention to this thread from the beginning, but looking at the 
sketch, I'm wondering what the purpose of the 2nd router is?  Why not instead 
of a router put a switch there, and then (assuming you need another WiFi 
access point at that position), plug the 2 PCs and a wireless access point 
(not sure of the right name) into the switch.

(That, in essence. is how my local LAN is setup except I have a router with 
two switches and two wireless access points, each plugged into one of the 
switches (different parts of the house).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193852

From	Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date	2018-03-16 09:50 +0100
Message-ID	<vtTdL-Em-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193848

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:26:38 -0400
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 09:42:25 PM David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 15 Mar 2018 at 10:18:20 (-0700), Don Armstrong wrote:  
> > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, David Wright wrote:  
> > > > When you reprogram routers with dd-wrt, does that allow it to
> > > > do, say, wired bridging even though the manufacturer's formware
> > > > doesn't allow for that?  
> > > 
> > > openwrt and dd-wrt both allow wired bridging[1] (or
> > > pseudo-bridging by routing if your wireless hardware doesn't
> > > support that).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1: I suppose there might be some network hardware which doesn't
> > > support actual bridging of wired interfaces, but I've yet to see
> > > such an example.  
> > 
> > I think the router I've been using for the last few years is one.
> > Although the User Manual from May 2013¹ has a brief section on
> > bridging, the June 2014² revision is missing that part. Both have
> > a "Wireless Repeating" link on the figure for Advanced Wireless
> > Settings, but the link is not present in the actual configuration
> > screen on the device.
> > 
> > In any case, the May 2013 manual says that to use it as a repeater,
> > even wired, you have to set security to WEP or None. That's no use.
> > 
> > I wandered into BestBuy and couldn't find much about bridging on
> > any of their router boxes. (Obviously I'm eschewing so-called
> > WiFi Wireless Repeaters.) What I'm trying to ascertain is that
> > all the wired bridging functionality is performed by the software
> > and not any special hardware in the device.

I'd have thought that hardwired hubs are long gone, that all devices
with multiple Ethernet ports are switches and therefore software-based.
Indeed, many routers can be configured as VLANs.

I had a different problem recently, trying to work out which of a few
high-bandwidth 802.11ac routers could be configured in pairs as wireless
point-to-point links, which also uses the term 'bridging', and no, they
can't all do it. But documentation is usually very poor for the
lesser-used functions of most things. 'Bridging' is also used to mean
wireless repeating, which is a different thing again.

> > 
> > Required topology:
> > 
> > 
> >             ╲│╱                   ╲│╱                 ╲│╱
> >          ┌───────┐             ┌───────┐           ┌───────┐
> >          │W     L╞    CAT5     │W     L╞═PC        │ ROKUs │
> > [Modem]══╡A     A╞═════════════╡A     A╞           │  etc  │
> >          │N     N╞             │N     N╞           └───────┘
> >          │       ╞═PC          │       ╞═PC
> >          └───────┘             └───────┘
> > 
> > 
> > ¹ WNDR3400v3_UM_10May2013.pdf
> > ² WNDR3400v3_UM_19June2014.pdf  
> 
> I haven't paid attention to this thread from the beginning, but
> looking at the sketch, I'm wondering what the purpose of the 2nd
> router is?  Why not instead of a router put a switch there, and then
> (assuming you need another WiFi access point at that position), plug
> the 2 PCs and a wireless access point (not sure of the right name)
> into the switch.

The network between the routers is a low-security DMZ, with access to
the main network only through the port-forwarding of the second router.

I have an Internet router, which provides occasional wireless for
visitors, and a server acting as a firewall leading to the rest of the
network, so there's no wireless access to the main network, though I do
have an old wireless router that I can plug in if I need it temporarily.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193858

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Date	2018-03-16 14:00 +0100
Message-ID	<vtX7I-3P5-49@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193852

On Friday, March 16, 2018 04:48:50 AM Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:26:38 -0400
> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

...

> > I haven't paid attention to this thread from the beginning, but
> > looking at the sketch, I'm wondering what the purpose of the 2nd
> > router is?  Why not instead of a router put a switch there, and then
> > (assuming you need another WiFi access point at that position), plug
> > the 2 PCs and a wireless access point (not sure of the right name)
> > into the switch.
> 
> The network between the routers is a low-security DMZ, with access to
> the main network only through the port-forwarding of the second router.
> 
> I have an Internet router, which provides occasional wireless for
> visitors, and a server acting as a firewall leading to the rest of the
> network, so there's no wireless access to the main network, though I do
> have an old wireless router that I can plug in if I need it temporarily.

Ahh, understood, thanks! 

I haven't had the need to do that, and I'm not quite sure how I would go about 
it, but (thinking on the fly now), I might try putting a switch immediately 
after the modem, with two routers plugged into that, then a router and one 
firewall (and one WAP) for the DMZ, and the 2nd router, with a stonger firewall, 
and 2nd WAP for the LAN.

(I like switches ;-)  (Of course, most routers incorporate a switch, iiuc.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193859

From	rhkramer@gmail.com
Date	2018-03-16 14:10 +0100
Message-ID	<vtXho-49w-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193858

On Friday, March 16, 2018 08:53:00 AM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> I haven't had the need to do that, and I'm not quite sure how I would go
> about it, but (thinking on the fly now), I might try putting a switch
> immediately after the modem, with two routers plugged into that, then a
> router and one firewall (and one WAP) for the DMZ, and the 2nd router,
> with a stonger firewall, and 2nd WAP for the LAN.
> 
> (I like switches ;-)  (Of course, most routers incorporate a switch, iiuc.)

Oh, thinking about it a little more (but not much ;-) , I may be assuming that 
the modem has the capability to serve as a, I guess you'd call it a DHCP 
server--mine does.  (Although I don't use it that way--in my case, I installed 
and prefer to use a Ubiquiti edge router immediately after the modem (with the 
modem in "bridge mode" (in at least one sense of the way "bridge" is used)--I 
forget all the reasons--oh, now I remember--I have some VOIP phones on the 
LAN, and the Ubiquiti lets me set up some QOS stuff to give them higher 
prioritiy.)

If my modem didn't have that capability, or maybe even if it did, I might rout 
everything through a (probably, again, a Ubiquity edge router), then to one 
router for the DMZ and one router for the LAN.  

(I wish my brain worked more like it did  when I was younger.  Well, at least 
in some respects ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#193861

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-03-16 14:30 +0100
Message-ID	<vtXAK-4jA-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193852

Joe wrote:
> [...]
> I'd have thought that hardwired hubs are long gone, that all devices
> with multiple Ethernet ports are switches and therefore software-based.
> Indeed, many routers can be configured as VLANs.

Hubs pretty much are.  Not entirely sure where you're thinking switches
are "software-based" though. Switching is typically done in ASICs these
days ... 

>
> I had a different problem recently, trying to work out which of a few
> high-bandwidth 802.11ac routers could be configured in pairs as wireless
> point-to-point links, which also uses the term 'bridging', and no, they
> can't all do it. But documentation is usually very poor for the
> lesser-used functions of most things. 'Bridging' is also used to mean
> wireless repeating, which is a different thing again.

Honestly, I'd never trust an "all-in-one" consumer router for that (even
if it "supports" it on the box). Pair of purpose-built radios (e.g.
Ubiquiti AirMAX) would probably do best for that situation.

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194343

From	Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date	2018-03-31 00:30 +0200
Message-ID	<vzaGZ-4Ec-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#193861

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:13:30 -0000 (UTC)
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

> Joe wrote:
> > [...]
> > I'd have thought that hardwired hubs are long gone, that all devices
> > with multiple Ethernet ports are switches and therefore software-based.
> > Indeed, many routers can be configured as VLANs.
> 
> Hubs pretty much are.  Not entirely sure where you're thinking switches
> are "software-based" though. Switching is typically done in ASICs these
> days ... 
> 
> >
> > I had a different problem recently, trying to work out which of a few
> > high-bandwidth 802.11ac routers could be configured in pairs as wireless
> > point-to-point links, which also uses the term 'bridging', and no, they
> > can't all do it. But documentation is usually very poor for the
> > lesser-used functions of most things. 'Bridging' is also used to mean
> > wireless repeating, which is a different thing again.
> 
> Honestly, I'd never trust an "all-in-one" consumer router for that (even
> if it "supports" it on the box). Pair of purpose-built radios (e.g.
> Ubiquiti AirMAX) would probably do best for that situation.

FWIW, I recently followed these directions:

https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/recipes/atheroswds

to use an old Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH to bring network connectivity to a
server in a location without ethernet cabling and lacking wireless
hardware. The Buffalo is configured as a wireless client connecting to
the main switch / router / AP (a TP-Link Archer [A]C2600), and the
Buffalo's wired switch is bridged to the rest of the network. The
TP-Link and Buffalo are both running OpenWRT [LEDE].

I'm not sure if I'm using the terminology correctly, but what this
means in practice is that I have one big network, with all wireless and
wired clients of the main AP [except those on the guest wireless
network, of course], as well as the wired clients of the Buffalo, on
the same network. [I haven't enabled access point functionality on the
Buffalo, since I don't need it.]

Works flawlessly, once I managed to follow the directions correctly ;)
This is the opposite of common multi-ap solutions, that use wired
backhaul and provide wireless connectivity to clients. In my
configuration, I use the 2.4 GHz wireless band for the "backhaul" (my
main wireless clients are using the 5 GHz band), and the server is
wired to the Buffalo.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194442

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-03 13:50 +0200
Message-ID	<vAsBQ-7m1-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194343

Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:13:30 -0000 (UTC)
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I'd have thought that hardwired hubs are long gone, that all devices
>> > with multiple Ethernet ports are switches and therefore software-based.
>> > Indeed, many routers can be configured as VLANs.
>> 
>> Hubs pretty much are.  Not entirely sure where you're thinking switches
>> are "software-based" though. Switching is typically done in ASICs these
>> days ... 
>> 
>> >
>> > I had a different problem recently, trying to work out which of a few
>> > high-bandwidth 802.11ac routers could be configured in pairs as wireless
>> > point-to-point links, which also uses the term 'bridging', and no, they
>> > can't all do it. But documentation is usually very poor for the
>> > lesser-used functions of most things. 'Bridging' is also used to mean
>> > wireless repeating, which is a different thing again.
>> 
>> Honestly, I'd never trust an "all-in-one" consumer router for that (even
>> if it "supports" it on the box). Pair of purpose-built radios (e.g.
>> Ubiquiti AirMAX) would probably do best for that situation.
>
> FWIW, I recently followed these directions:
>
> https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/recipes/atheroswds
>
> to use an old Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH to bring network connectivity to a
> server in a location without ethernet cabling and lacking wireless
> hardware. The Buffalo is configured as a wireless client connecting to
> the main switch / router / AP (a TP-Link Archer [A]C2600), and the
> Buffalo's wired switch is bridged to the rest of the network. The
> TP-Link and Buffalo are both running OpenWRT [LEDE].
>
> I'm not sure if I'm using the terminology correctly [...]

Yep, you've got the terms right.  

Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
TP-Link?

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194528

From	Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date	2018-04-05 19:40 +0200
Message-ID	<vBh1D-7v0-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194442

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

> Celejar wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:13:30 -0000 (UTC)
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Joe wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > I'd have thought that hardwired hubs are long gone, that all devices
> >> > with multiple Ethernet ports are switches and therefore software-based.
> >> > Indeed, many routers can be configured as VLANs.
> >> 
> >> Hubs pretty much are.  Not entirely sure where you're thinking switches
> >> are "software-based" though. Switching is typically done in ASICs these
> >> days ... 
> >> 
> >> >
> >> > I had a different problem recently, trying to work out which of a few
> >> > high-bandwidth 802.11ac routers could be configured in pairs as wireless
> >> > point-to-point links, which also uses the term 'bridging', and no, they
> >> > can't all do it. But documentation is usually very poor for the
> >> > lesser-used functions of most things. 'Bridging' is also used to mean
> >> > wireless repeating, which is a different thing again.
> >> 
> >> Honestly, I'd never trust an "all-in-one" consumer router for that (even
> >> if it "supports" it on the box). Pair of purpose-built radios (e.g.
> >> Ubiquiti AirMAX) would probably do best for that situation.
> >
> > FWIW, I recently followed these directions:
> >
> > https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/recipes/atheroswds
> >
> > to use an old Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH to bring network connectivity to a
> > server in a location without ethernet cabling and lacking wireless
> > hardware. The Buffalo is configured as a wireless client connecting to
> > the main switch / router / AP (a TP-Link Archer [A]C2600), and the
> > Buffalo's wired switch is bridged to the rest of the network. The
> > TP-Link and Buffalo are both running OpenWRT [LEDE].
> >
> > I'm not sure if I'm using the terminology correctly [...]
> 
> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
> 
> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
> TP-Link?

I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
but I don't need it.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194545

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-06 12:20 +0200
Message-ID	<vBwDn-1jM-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194528

Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> 
>> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
>> 
>> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
>> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
>> TP-Link?
>
> I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
> clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
> but I don't need it.

Good deal.  Using the buffalo as a wifi repeater would kill throughput
for everything connected to it :)


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194551

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-04-06 16:50 +0200
Message-ID	<vBAQF-3ZY-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194545

On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 10:00:31 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
> >> 
> >> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
> >> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
> >> TP-Link?
> >
> > I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
> > clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
> > but I don't need it.
> 
> Good deal.  Using the buffalo as a wifi repeater would kill throughput
> for everything connected to it :)

I was under the impression that this would work even with consumer
grade routers if the backhaul was on a different band or, with dual
radio routers, a different channel from the clients.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194555

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-06 18:40 +0200
Message-ID	<vBCz7-5cW-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194551

David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 10:00:31 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Celejar wrote:
>> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
>> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> 
>> >> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
>> >> 
>> >> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
>> >> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
>> >> TP-Link?
>> >
>> > I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
>> > clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
>> > but I don't need it.
>> 
>> Good deal.  Using the buffalo as a wifi repeater would kill throughput
>> for everything connected to it :)
>
> I was under the impression that this would work even with consumer
> grade routers if the backhaul was on a different band or, with dual
> radio routers, a different channel from the clients.
>

It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194573

From	David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date	2018-04-07 16:00 +0200
Message-ID	<vBWxP-2EM-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194555

On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 10:00:31 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> Celejar wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
> >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yep, you've got the terms right.  
> >> >> 
> >> >> Does the buffalo also provide wifi access to other clients close to it?
> >> >> or is it JUST trying to pretend that it's a client device to the
> >> >> TP-Link?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not using the Buffalo to provide wireless connectivity to any
> >> > clients. The page I linked to does have instructions for doing that,
> >> > but I don't need it.
> >> 
> >> Good deal.  Using the buffalo as a wifi repeater would kill throughput
> >> for everything connected to it :)
> >
> > I was under the impression that this would work even with consumer
> > grade routers if the backhaul was on a different band or, with dual
> > radio routers, a different channel from the clients.
> >
> 
> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.

Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the
wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously
on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill
throughput for everything too?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194579

From	Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Date	2018-04-07 22:30 +0200
Message-ID	<vC2Df-7db-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#194573

David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 16:26:47 (-0000), Dan Purgert wrote:
>> 
>> It's a nuance in the semantics of what it means to "repeat" wifi.
>> Suffice to say, in order to "repeat" wifi, you have one radio splitting
>> its time between pretending to be an AP for a client device, and
>> pretending to be a client device to the upstream AP.
>
> Then I'm not sure why you wrote "Good deal". I'd be wanting the
> wireless connectivity described above as not needed, though obviously
> on a separate band/channel. Were you implying that that would kill
> throughput for everything too?

If he's using the buffalo device to "repeat" the wifi signal (which he
isn't), then yes the throughput would tank.


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Help needed with home network configuration

Contents

#193556 — Help needed with home network configuration

#193557

#193560

#193810

#193815

#193838

#193845

#193848

#193852

#193858

#193859

#193861

#194343

#194442

#194528

#194545

#194551

#194555

#194573

#194579