|
Can a crappy cable modem cause me to drop internet for 10 seconds every once in a while? I have an XR500 for my router and it happens on all my machines. It doesn't happen all the time, which makes it more difficult for me to diagnose.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
space marine todd posted:Can a crappy cable modem cause me to drop internet for 10 seconds every once in a while? I have an XR500 for my router and it happens on all my machines. It doesn't happen all the time, which makes it more difficult for me to diagnose. Don't see why it couldn't. Not that you want your PC exposed to the internet with nothing between, but you could try it with just the modem and PC for a bit and see if it does the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
I read all the previous posts, and let me see if I have this parsed correctly as it pertains to the ER-Lite//USG + UAC-AP-LITE combo: ER-Lite: Has a GUI at 192.168.1.1 or whatever like I'm used to, but I have to use local software on my computer to configure the UAC-AP-LITE and push settings out to it. ER-X: Same as the ER-Lite, but less good due to offloading(?), and has PoE port? USG: Has a GUI at 192.168.1.1 or whatever I can use to configure the router, UAC-AP-LITE, and any other on-brand gear I happen to acquire. Neither the ER-Lite or USG does PoE, so i'll need an extra power outlet to do the UAC-AP-Lite's included PoE injector, correct? Is this accurate? If so, what's the purpose of the CloudKey? And how do all these products compare to the Amplifi line, which seems more geared to the casual home user? Deviant fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Deviant posted:I read all the previous posts, and let me see if I have this parsed correctly as it pertains to the ER-Lite//USG + UAC-AP-LITE combo: Close, the USG has a GUI that is reached wherever you install the UniFi Controller software. This can be on a desktop, laptop, raspberry pi, wherever you want to install it as long as it's on the local network and only needs to be running when you want to make changes. The CloudKey is just a small computer that runs the UniFi Controller software, that's it. No need for that anywhere if you just install on a computer somewhere in the network. I don;t know anything about the Amplifi line. Edit: As an example I have the USG, a Ubiquiti switch and AP. I installed the UniFi controller software on a rasperry pi along with pi-hole and plugged that into the switch. Now I open a browser to the IP of the raspberry pi and can access the controller software to configure the router, switch and AP. If I had an ER-X or Lite instead of a USG my setup would be the same except I'd configure the ER-X through it's built-in interface and the switch and AP through the software installed on the raspberry pi. MonkeyBot fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Deviant posted:I read all the previous posts, and let me see if I have this parsed correctly as it pertains to the ER-Lite//USG + UAC-AP-LITE combo: The USG is configured using the same software (the controller) that the AP also uses, it has no web server interface. The controller can be installed just about anywhere and can be always on (like a CloudKey, RasPi, you own PC) if you want some more advanced functionality, or only on when you need to configure/troubleshoot. You are right about the POE injector needing its own outlet. Amplifi is a home mesh system, and yes, it is squarely focused on the home market like Google Wifi, Orbi, etc. Amplifi is entirely configured through a mobile app. It is slick but much less powerful than the Unifi and Edgerouter lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Okay, helpful. I feel like this is all a bit much for a 1200 sq foot apartment, but the Archer C9 continues to annoy me with its 1) Not doing UPnP correctly all the time and 2) Requiring a reboot to set port forwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Heads up. Here’s a dude on reddit selling a bunch of Unifi APs for cheap https://www.reddit.com/r/homelabsales/comments/ah29my/fsusnc_10x_ubiquiti_unifi_ap_ac_lr_access_points/?st=JR13ZXHX&sh=bacd5e10 for LR versions and https://www.reddit.com/r/hardwareswap/comments/aghhrf/usanch100x_ubiquiti_unifi_appro_3x_ubiquiti_unifi/?st=JR141HTX&sh=8756eba9 For pros. I picked up two pros from him for 85 bucks. Not bass considering they’re 299 normally. Apparently he bought em all from a business that’s switching over their entire system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Delzuma posted:Heads up. Here’s a dude on reddit selling a bunch of Unifi APs for cheap Nice, thanks for the heads up. I was just about to get another LR to see if I can avoid a point-to-point solution to get out to my second garage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Delzuma posted:I picked up two pros from him for 85 bucks. Not bass considering they’re 299 normally. UAP-Pro are not $300. They're the 1st generation UniFi 802.11N dual radio 2G/5G model and they should be significantly cheaper than UAP-AC-lite / UAP-AC-Pro / UAP-AC-LR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:UAP-Pro are not $300. They're the 1st generation UniFi 802.11N dual radio 2G/5G model and they should be significantly cheaper than UAP-AC-lite / UAP-AC-Pro / UAP-AC-LR. You’re correct. Still not a bad deal for home use tho. Looks like a little less than half price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It seems to me that the software and some of their QA has taken a hit after several of their most visible developers left the company. This is a Ubiquiti employee response. I don't think they have QA @Gizbug > Are they holding off putting the firmware up online? Too much bugs were discovered in v2.0.0 for ER-X :facepalm: We shall publish v2.0.1 on download site.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
hey i'm going to barge in here because I had questions about 3rd party router firmware but the op answered them i guess. Then I saw there was a section in the op about like "15km point to point" or whatever, and I remembered a project out of I think Bucharest? somewhere in Europe where they developed an optical point to point uplink using a pair of network cards, a couple cheap magnifying glasses, pvc pipe, and your choice of red or infrared led. Basically you aimed these pipes at each other and they blinked packets back and forth or whatever. IIRC maybe each station actually needed two pipes for full duplex? I'm assuming this no longer has a niche because it came from a time where you still had to buy actual discrete network cards and wifi was either uncommon or not invented yet. But I do remember them being very cheap for the time and having really insane range like 32km confirmed by attaching them to various masts or w/e. They had a whole thing about the correct way to mount and align them and what led had the best performance in snow and rain and poo poo. Anyway does anyone know what i'm talking about? Did I hallucinate that thing? Are there any other weird projects like that active still that poo poo was cool to read about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Inept posted:This is a Ubiquiti employee response. I don't think they have QA hence, "after several of their most visible developers left the company"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Yeah I was agreeing. I was mainly posting that because even their developers admit things are a bit poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
It is the Ubiquiti way.. Their marketing department has always been a year or more ahead of their developers. They consistently market products with features that won't be added for a year after the product is released. It is something they have always done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
stevewm posted:They consistently market products with features that won't be added for a year after the product is released. Or ever, for anybody who paid a lot of money to get on their first AC products.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
I'm hoping someone here might be able to help me with an IPv6 problem. I think I've always had this issue, but it is only now starting to bite me. My setup: I have a standard AT&T router that is connected to the outside world.  Connected to that, I have an Asus RT-N56U running LEDE Reboot 17.01.4 r3560. This router is "my network".    AT&T router's device details for the Asus:  My problem: IPv6 does not seem to be working between my Asus and the AT&T router, and thus it seems like nothing on my network can use IPv6. I can ping from my computer to the Asus via ipv6 fine; I can ping external IPv6 addresses from the AT&T router. From the Asus, I can ping the AT&T router's delegated address (2602:304:78ee:f830::1) but I can not ping an external address like 2606:4700:4700::1111, nor can it reach the AT&T router's Link Local Address, fe80::3a3b:c8ff:fec8:1e6d. I assume I've got something messed up based on assuming that IPv6 is going to work like IPv4 (I just want a NAT). My guess is that the Asus has maybe configured itself as though it is the one connected to the outside internet, rather than to another local router, however, I'm not sure what settings I'd need to change to fix that. Could anyone help point me in the right direction here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Are you wanting to use the Asus router as your router, and just have the AT&T device handle the connection to their network? At the moment the WAN side of your Asus router is being treated like any other device on the LAN. If you post the model number or a photo of your AT&T modem then someone will be able to help you turn it into a bridge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Are you wanting to use the Asus router as your router, and just have the AT&T device handle the connection to their network? At the moment the WAN side of your Asus router is being treated like any other device on the LAN. Oh. That's sort of the case, but I omitted one detail that I didn't think was important. The AT&T device handles the network connection, and then my roommate and I both have our individual personal routers connected to it. I do not know whether or not he actively uses the AT&T device's wifi. So there's actually two routers connected to the AT&T device so we can each have our own network. Is it possible to have two bridged devices? If not, I'd need to try to find a different solution. The AT&T device is a Pace Plc 5031NV-030. Searching that model number, the first result was instructions for setting up a bridge network, so I found that at least. Obviously that's only useful if I could do that with two devices?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:Oh. That's sort of the case, but I omitted one detail that I didn't think was important. The AT&T device handles the network connection, and then my roommate and I both have our individual personal routers connected to it. I do not know whether or not he actively uses the AT&T device's wifi. What you're describing sounds like double NAT, which may be causing your IPv6 issue. How are you connecting two routers to this AT&T device anyway? A switch in between?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
I'd suggest you bridge the AT&T device and then maybe you and your roommate agree to share a router. Prefix delegation won't work in this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
thiazi posted:What you're describing sounds like double NAT, which may be causing your IPv6 issue. How are you connecting two routers to this AT&T device anyway? A switch in between? Double NAT is basically what I was hoping would happen. It's working perfectly for my ipv4 needs. They're both plugged in to Ethernet ports on the AT&T device. Thanks Ants posted:I'd suggest you bridge the AT&T device and then maybe you and your roommate agree to share a router. Prefix delegation won't work in this scenario.  Could I use something like ipv6-over-ipv4?
pseudorandom fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
You could probably tunnel out using your own NATed router and use IPv6 space from another provider but then this conversation really comes back to asking you what you're hoping to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:hey i'm going to barge in here because I had questions about 3rd party router firmware but the op answered them i guess. http://ronja.twibright.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
That is awesome
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:You could probably tunnel out using your own NATed router and use IPv6 space from another provider but then this conversation really comes back to asking you what you're hoping to achieve. Ah, okay. Let me try to explain the actual goals of my set up. I originally set it up this way so that we could both have separate subnets, thus keeping our networks and devices private. Using NAT had the benefit that I could use port-forwarding on the Asus to restrict in-bound traffic only to what I've specified. I've got a lot of half-assed dev servers and whatnot running with crappy passwords because they're only accessible from my LAN. This also gives each of us wifi networks located in each of our bedrooms, and we both have control over our dumb SSID names. I also want DHCP on my network to specify a custom nameserver, my pi-hole, located in my subnet. I also obviously plug other ethernet devices into my Asus device, so a physical switch is also technically one of my goals. Thanks for taking the time to help me, I hope this is a little clearer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Get a Mikrotik routerboard and you'll be able to have a subnet each, firewall rules, two Wi-Fi networks etc. Then bridge your AT&T device into it. It has a reasonably steep learning curve but there's a thread in here that covers the devices and you'll learn a lot as well. A hEX is a good starting point if you don't need Wi-Fi built into the box https://www.balticnetworks.com/mikrotik-routerboard-750gr3-hex-w-enclosure-power-supply.html Thanks Ants fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Oh wow. All of the replies helped a lot by giving introducing me to a lot of terms for concepts I knew but didn't know the name of. That helped me hone my googling toward results that were very close to my same situation. And, long story short, I changed the "Request IPv6-prefix of length" option on my Asus from "Automatic" to "64" and now everything is working! Thank you, all! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
PFsense/Opensense would do that too. Costs more, will be more powerful. Will also be easier to configure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
That is a cool and interesting project. Line of site has a number of advantages, but I've come across line of site problems before. One time a local mobile company called to ask for the construction crane to be moved, the construction company had to explain that not only would in not move by a 12 storey building would be built there. The idea of the 10 Mbit IR link is cool but I keep looking at the Ubiquiti AirFibre backhaul hardware. A lot with 100-300 km range. https://www.ui.com/products/#airfiber
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
My amateur-hour efforts to  upgrade my home network from an R7000 have hit a bit of a snag. I'm hoping someone can give me a better idea, because I think it's not strictly a tech support issue (otherwise I'd be posting this on the Ubiquiti forums).My Edgerouter X is configured with one WAN port and a vlan-aware switch on the remaining ports. Two ports are tagged for IOT crap, one is a dedicated port for the management LAN, and one is a trunk that goes into an 8-port Unifi PoE switch. At the other end, I have two Raspberry Pis that will sit on my "Home" LAN and run PiHole, OpenHab, MQTT, etc. I had the bright idea to run the Unifi controller on one of these Pis in a docker container, using a macvlan bridge to put the controller on the Management VLAN. I'm setting all of this up on a tabletop first, which is possibly the only good idea I had. I got the Unifi docker container set up and the switch adopted/initially configured with the Pi plugged directly into a port on the Management LAN. I then set up a macvlan bridge (using "docker network create"), and put the Pi on a switch port with the Home VLAN as native/untagged and Management VLAN tagged. My laptop is plugged into a port on the Management LAN, and the firewall currently allows traffic between Management/Home immediately after the "drop invalid" rule (this becomes important later). Here's what I've figured out:
I think that final point is my problem, but my understanding is that the same MAC on different VLANs shouldn't be an issue. Is the router being weird? Should I just set eth0 to promiscuous mode and change the MAC? Is my whole system just too convoluted and stupid? I'm only even messing with the Unifi stuff because of the AP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Discussion Quorum posted:My Edgerouter X is configured with one WAN port and a vlan-aware switch on the remaining ports. Two ports are tagged for IOT crap, one is a dedicated port for the management LAN, and one is a trunk that goes into an 8-port Unifi PoE switch. Are all of these individual networks, i.e. are they their own subnets? If that's the case then it isn't a VLAN-aware switch, just three different routed interfaces of which two have VLAN tags. I promise I'm not trying to be a dickhead, it's an important distinction with the Edgerouter line. You can configure the ports to be switched, but this switching is done on CPU which will make performance poo poo the bed quickly. If all ports are different networks then you should be fine and do not need to configure any switching, just VLAN tagging on the ports that need tags. [/quote] Discussion Quorum posted:routing issues I don't know poo poo about Docker specific networking, but I can tell you that in all likelihood what's happening here is a boring routing issue, the ERX and firewall are likely behaving properly. Laptop (mgmt) -> Pi (mgmt) = fine, no routing necessary Laptop (mgmt) -> Pi (LAN, mgmt up) = broken Laptop (mgmt) -> Pi (LAN, mgmt down) = works This smells like Docker is acting like a router with a default gateway on the management network. Investigate the routing table/behavior there and see how Docker/the Pi is trying to actually communicate. When invalid states are tripped with simple communication like this, that usually means that the firewall sees a connection start on one interface but get continued on a different interface which is a no-no. In this example, my guess is that your laptop is initiating communication on the LAN address but Docker/the Pi is replying back using the management interface, because as far as its routing table is concerned it's the best match for a route back to the laptop. Edit: for troubleshooting stuff like this, packet traces are your friend. tcpdump/wireshark/etc should help set you straight. H2SO4 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
H2SO4 posted:Are all of these individual networks, i.e. are they their own subnets? If that's the case then it isn't a VLAN-aware switch, just three different routed interfaces of which two have VLAN tags. I promise I'm not trying to be a dickhead, it's an important distinction with the Edgerouter line. You can configure the ports to be switched, but this switching is done on CPU which will make performance poo poo the bed quickly. If all ports are different networks then you should be fine and do not need to configure any switching, just VLAN tagging on the ports that need tags. Each of the VLANs I described is its own /24 subnet. My understanding was that the Edgerouter X (unlike most of the other Edgerouters) has hardware-accelerated switching on eth2-eth4 and can function as a poor man's smart switch. I don't really need to daisy-chain like this, but it buys me a couple extra ports where I can stick something like my Xbox (which sits right next to the router and has little LAN-related traffic). In hindsight I should have just bought a 16-port smart switch. PoE and a shared controller with the APs for $95 was too tempting, and of course at the time I wasn't going to be adding any more devices for a long time  Currently my ports are: eth0 - on switch0, PVID Management (for initial setup - where my laptop is plugged in) eth1 - WAN, currently unplugged eth2 - on switch0; trunk to Unifi switch (PVID Management, Home/Guest/IOT tagged) - eth3 & eth4 - on switch0; PVID IOT quote:This smells like Docker is acting like a router with a default gateway on the management network. Investigate the routing table/behavior there and see how Docker/the Pi is trying to actually communicate. When invalid states are tripped with simple communication like this, that usually means that the firewall sees a connection start on one interface but get continued on a different interface which is a no-no. In this example, my guess is that your laptop is initiating communication on the LAN address but Docker/the Pi is replying back using the management interface, because as far as its routing table is concerned it's the best match for a route back to the laptop. This is helpful. It doesn't seem to matter if the Unifi controller container is actually running (eth0.1 is always up, even though it was created through Docker), but I suppose that doesn't mean Docker isn't doing some fuckery in the background. I'll try setting up the routing myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Discussion Quorum posted:My understanding was that the Edgerouter X (unlike most of the other Edgerouters) has hardware-accelerated switching on eth2-eth4 and can function as a poor man's smart switch. Apologies, you're correct on this point. Best of luck!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
yes! e: I was insanely wrong with the distance lol SniperWoreConverse fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
So, I had an old Unifi 16 XG switch that was part of the beta release which had some issues with the builtin copper ports not actually being able to negotiate 10G links. While an RMA was processed I got a couple of 10GTek 10GBASE-T SFP+ modules to connect my R720. It's my understanding that they aren't really compliant with the SFP+ module specs since it requires more power thanks to the fact that it has extra poo poo wedged in there (technical term) to fool the switch into thinking it's a fiber module. Be warned, if you're running these things, they're loving hot. Even when nothing had been plugged in for hours those things were piping hot. I'm glad I didn't just say gently caress it and stay with the old switch because I'd be seriously concerned that the modules themselves would burn out or possibly damage the switch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Discussion Quorum posted:My understanding was that the Edgerouter X (unlike most of the other Edgerouters) has hardware-accelerated switching on eth2-eth4 and can function as a poor man's smart switch. yeah pretty much. Edgerouter X is actually one single 5-port smart switch that gets partitioned up into WAN/LAN with software. You're thinking of the ER-PoE which has a 3-port switch chip on Eth2-4 CrazyLittle posted:Edgerouter X, MSRP $49, 5 ports in a switch-on-chip configuration. IIRC the ER-X was made possible by the release of a SOC that has the CPU and 5-port ethernet switch all built into the same unit. You can configure the ports as individual interfaces where the CPU handles all traffic forwarding, or you can leave them bound to the switching backplane which can forward LAN packets at wire-speed. There's no IPv4/IPv6/IPsec acceleration hardware so don't plan on getting wire-speed routing, NAT or LAN-to-LAN VPN through it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
Hi, I'd appreciate any advice on this situation: My Dad wants me to set up wifi at their house so they can use it on their back deck. Right now they have a comcast-rented router buried in the basement that sends a lovely signal to the deck and the dining room adjacent to the back door to the deck. The house is a 1600sqft ranch, the back deck is 500sqft or so. I can't decide if it's worth murdering-it-into-the-ground with a mesh wifi system, including an access point right by the back door, or if a TP-Link AC1200 buried in the basement is better than whatever bullshit comcast gave them to get the job done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:Hi, I'd appreciate any advice on this situation: Can you run a network cable from where the current router is now to somewhere more reasonable for coverage on the first floor? If you can, just get a Unifi AP and do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:Can you run a network cable from where the current router is now to somewhere more reasonable for coverage on the first floor? If you can, just get a Unifi AP and do that. Not really - when I lived at home, I drilled a hole through the floor from my bedroom into the basement so I could game on a wired connection and tbh I'm surprised he didn't disown me for that one. The hole has since been patched, which is a shame, because that would have been a good spot to put the router.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:17
|
|