Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
eoip tunnel Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/23/2014 01:57 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Thanks Paul, This was actually a PTP650 (not Canopy). These don't enable telnet by default, so telnet wasn't an option from the beginning. I had hoped that I could just plug the thing into the router in the closet, then do the setup from my office. However, the best I could do was ping to the PTP650, but I never got any packets coming back. We don't have any bridges on this MT. I tried dstnat, srcnat, and netmap, but for reasons I can't explain it didn't work. Finally resigned myself with just plugging in directly. Oh well... bp On 9/23/2014 11:42 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: It looks like you have the rule right, Bill. Not sure what the problem is. Is the rule processing any packets / moving any bytes? You can ping 169.254.1.1 from the MT? And this port is not part of a bridge? Maybe verify there are no manual routes sending traffic the wrong way? Maybe a masquerade rule changing addresses? Another way of doing this is to use ‘action=netmap’ instead of ‘dstnat’. Try the port mapping variant next I guess. You shouldn’t need to SRCNAT the return traffic since that connection was opened by the DSTNAT. If you need the SM to be able to instigate packets to the PC, you might need to create the “mirror image” with SRCNAT going the other way but otherwise not needed. I don’t think telnet is the least complicated way… once you get this DSTNAT way working. Due to Canopy’s poor implementation of telnet commands you sometimes need GUI access to do certain things. Eliminates the need to learn/memorize the telnet syntax. PC Blaze Broadband *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:18 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 When you're accessing an IP address on another subnet and the gateway isn't properly set, you need to use SRCNAT and DSTNAT. Someone earlier said to set the 169.254.x.x IP on the MT and to then telnet from the MT. That's the least complicated way. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> *From: *"Bill Prince via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>> *To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:13:44 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 For some reason, that's not working either. Got the PTP650 on ether9 on the MT. Ether9 gets IP 169.254.1.3/16. I created a reachable address on the local interface (192.168.222.199). Then I added the dst-nat: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=192.168.222.199 to-address=169.254.1.1 I ping the 192.168.222.199 address from a PC on the local network, but nothing happens. Torching the port on the MT shows nothing happening on any IP on that port (except discovery). bp On 9/23/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere—even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > >
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Can you do a pptp tunnel and configure pc for tunnel using the 169.254.x.x/16 block ? Ive done this in a pinch and works great. On 09/23/2014 04:09 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Like I said. Telnet is not an option (PTP650). bp On 9/23/2014 9:39 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: You guys are making this hard I think Hang a 168.254.x.x IP on the Tik interface. Telnet from the Tik to the Canopy radio Change its IP through telnet ip -1 123.123.123.50 (or whatever) Change its netmask through telnet netmask -1 255.255.255.0 (or whatever) Change its gateway through telnet netgateway 123.123.123.1 (or whatever) reboot through telnet reset Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:58 AM To: Motorola III Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Like I said. Telnet is not an option (PTP650). bp On 9/23/2014 9:39 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: You guys are making this hard I think Hang a 168.254.x.x IP on the Tik interface. Telnet from the Tik to the Canopy radio Change its IP through telnet ip -1 123.123.123.50 (or whatever) Change its netmask through telnet netmask -1 255.255.255.0 (or whatever) Change its gateway through telnet netgateway 123.123.123.1 (or whatever) reboot through telnet reset Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:58 AM To: Motorola III Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Thanks Paul, This was actually a PTP650 (not Canopy). These don't enable telnet by default, so telnet wasn't an option from the beginning. I had hoped that I could just plug the thing into the router in the closet, then do the setup from my office. However, the best I could do was ping to the PTP650, but I never got any packets coming back. We don't have any bridges on this MT. I tried dstnat, srcnat, and netmap, but for reasons I can't explain it didn't work. Finally resigned myself with just plugging in directly. Oh well... bp On 9/23/2014 11:42 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: It looks like you have the rule right, Bill. Not sure what the problem is. Is the rule processing any packets / moving any bytes? You can ping 169.254.1.1 from the MT? And this port is not part of a bridge? Maybe verify there are no manual routes sending traffic the wrong way? Maybe a masquerade rule changing addresses? Another way of doing this is to use ‘action=netmap’ instead of ‘dstnat’. Try the port mapping variant next I guess. You shouldn’t need to SRCNAT the return traffic since that connection was opened by the DSTNAT. If you need the SM to be able to instigate packets to the PC, you might need to create the “mirror image” with SRCNAT going the other way but otherwise not needed. I don’t think telnet is the least complicated way… once you get this DSTNAT way working. Due to Canopy’s poor implementation of telnet commands you sometimes need GUI access to do certain things. Eliminates the need to learn/memorize the telnet syntax. PC Blaze Broadband *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:18 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 When you're accessing an IP address on another subnet and the gateway isn't properly set, you need to use SRCNAT and DSTNAT. Someone earlier said to set the 169.254.x.x IP on the MT and to then telnet from the MT. That's the least complicated way. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> *From: *"Bill Prince via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>> *To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:13:44 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 For some reason, that's not working either. Got the PTP650 on ether9 on the MT. Ether9 gets IP 169.254.1.3/16. I created a reachable address on the local interface (192.168.222.199). Then I added the dst-nat: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=192.168.222.199 to-address=169.254.1.1 I ping the 192.168.222.199 address from a PC on the local network, but nothing happens. Torching the port on the MT shows nothing happening on any IP on that port (except discovery). bp On 9/23/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere—even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > > Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. > > Packets go out, but don't come back.
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
It looks like you have the rule right, Bill. Not sure what the problem is. Is the rule processing any packets / moving any bytes? You can ping 169.254.1.1 from the MT? And this port is not part of a bridge? Maybe verify there are no manual routes sending traffic the wrong way? Maybe a masquerade rule changing addresses? Another way of doing this is to use ‘action=netmap’ instead of ‘dstnat’. Try the port mapping variant next I guess. You shouldn’t need to SRCNAT the return traffic since that connection was opened by the DSTNAT. If you need the SM to be able to instigate packets to the PC, you might need to create the “mirror image” with SRCNAT going the other way but otherwise not needed. I don’t think telnet is the least complicated way… once you get this DSTNAT way working. Due to Canopy’s poor implementation of telnet commands you sometimes need GUI access to do certain things. Eliminates the need to learn/memorize the telnet syntax. PC Blaze Broadband From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:18 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 When you're accessing an IP address on another subnet and the gateway isn't properly set, you need to use SRCNAT and DSTNAT. Someone earlier said to set the 169.254.x.x IP on the MT and to then telnet from the MT. That's the least complicated way. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> _ From: "Bill Prince via Af" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:13:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 For some reason, that's not working either. Got the PTP650 on ether9 on the MT. Ether9 gets IP 169.254.1.3/16. I created a reachable address on the local interface (192.168.222.199). Then I added the dst-nat: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=192.168.222.199 to-address=169.254.1.1 I ping the 192.168.222.199 address from a PC on the local network, but nothing happens. Torching the port on the MT shows nothing happening on any IP on that port (except discovery). bp On 9/23/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere—even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how > netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > > Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. > > Packets go out, but don't come back. > > > > bp > > > > On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: > >> On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > >>> Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the > >>> default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is > >>> that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it > >>> doesn't know the way back. > >>> > >>> I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get > >>> replies unless I go directly from the MT. > >> Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) > >> and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for > >> the radio to "see" you. > >> > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Yeah, I love all the Mikrotik “tricks” to accomplish these type things, but sometimes I struggle at always being successful. In this case, telneting directly from the tik takes about one minute (OK, two if you take your time) and then you are done From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:18 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 When you're accessing an IP address on another subnet and the gateway isn't properly set, you need to use SRCNAT and DSTNAT. Someone earlier said to set the 169.254.x.x IP on the MT and to then telnet from the MT. That's the least complicated way. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> From: "Bill Prince via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:13:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 For some reason, that's not working either. Got the PTP650 on ether9 on the MT. Ether9 gets IP 169.254.1.3/16. I created a reachable address on the local interface (192.168.222.199). Then I added the dst-nat: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=192.168.222.199 to-address=169.254.1.1 I ping the 192.168.222.199 address from a PC on the local network, but nothing happens. Torching the port on the MT shows nothing happening on any IP on that port (except discovery). bp On 9/23/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere—even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how > netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > > Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. > > Packets go out, but don't come back. > > > > bp > > > > On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: > >> On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > >>> Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the > >>> default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is > >>> that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it > >>> doesn't know the way back. > >>> > >>> I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get > >>> replies unless I go directly from the MT. > >> Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) > >> and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for > >> the radio to "see" you. > >> > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
When you're accessing an IP address on another subnet and the gateway isn't properly set, you need to use SRCNAT and DSTNAT. Someone earlier said to set the 169.254.x.x IP on the MT and to then telnet from the MT. That's the least complicated way. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Bill Prince via Af" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:13:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 For some reason, that's not working either. Got the PTP650 on ether9 on the MT. Ether9 gets IP 169.254.1.3/16. I created a reachable address on the local interface (192.168.222.199). Then I added the dst-nat: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=192.168.222.199 to-address=169.254.1.1 I ping the 192.168.222.199 address from a PC on the local network, but nothing happens. Torching the port on the MT shows nothing happening on any IP on that port (except discovery). bp On 9/23/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere—even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address ] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [ mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com ] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how > netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > > Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. > > Packets go out, but don't come back. > > > > bp > > > > On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: > >> On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > >>> Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the > >>> default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is > >>> that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it > >>> doesn't know the way back. > >>> > >>> I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get > >>> replies unless I go directly from the MT. > >> Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) > >> and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for > >> the radio to "see" you. > >> > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
For some reason, that's not working either. Got the PTP650 on ether9 on the MT. Ether9 gets IP 169.254.1.3/16. I created a reachable address on the local interface (192.168.222.199). Then I added the dst-nat: /ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=192.168.222.199 to-address=169.254.1.1 I ping the 192.168.222.199 address from a PC on the local network, but nothing happens. Torching the port on the MT shows nothing happening on any IP on that port (except discovery). bp On 9/23/2014 10:18 AM, Paul Conlin via Af wrote: OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere---even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > > Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. > > Packets go out, but don't come back. > > > > bp > > > > On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: > >> On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > >>> Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the > >>> default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is > >>> that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it > >>> doesn't know the way back. > >>> > >>> I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get > >>> replies unless I go directly from the MT. > >> Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) > >> and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for > >> the radio to "see" you. > >> > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Tried that too. I added this route (other routes removed for brevity): IPv4 Route Table === Active Routes: Network DestinationNetmask Gateway Interface Metric 169.254.0.0 255.255.0.0192.168.222.1 192.168.222.116 11 Packets seem to go to the radio, but they don't come back. Oh, and this is a PTP650 that I'm trying to set up (not a Canopy radio). Telnet is not turned on by default. bp On 9/23/2014 9:16 AM, cstanners--- via Af wrote: IIRC newer windows versions will not route to a 169.254 IP that is outside your local network - if I need to access a SM on that IP that is behind a router, I need to do as administrator "route add 169.254.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 put.routers.ip.here" --Original Message-- From: Bill Prince via Af Sender: Af To: Motorola III ReplyTo: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Sent: Sep 23, 2014 10:58 AM Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT.
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
OMG Bill. You *have* to learn how to DST-NAT. Great for programming Canopy radios and best get-me-out-of-this-jam rescue trick EVVVER. Access any device on any MT router anywhere-even when not routable. No VPN required. No need for Telnet tunneling. First put the SM on a MT interface and assign 169.254.1.2/16 Two variants to pick from: Add a new [reachable_address] on the MT that you don't need for anything else then: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] to-address=169.254.1.1 Then http://[reachable_address] to get to the SM Or use an existing MT address and map from an unused port like this: /ip fire nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat dst-address=[reachable_address] dst-port=8169 to-address=169.254.1.1 to-port=80 Then http://[reachable_address]:8169 to get to the SM PC Blaze Broadband > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pconlin=blazebroadband@afmug.com] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:44 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the > 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how netmap > actually works, but I'll give it a rip. > > bp > > On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > > Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. > > Packets go out, but don't come back. > > > > bp > > > > On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: > >> On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > >>> Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the > >>> default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is > >>> that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it > >>> doesn't know the way back. > >>> > >>> I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get > >>> replies unless I go directly from the MT. > >> Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) > >> and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for > >> the radio to "see" you. > >> > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
+1 Oh yeah. Thanks for the reminder Paul. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/23/2014 09:39 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: You guys are making this hard I think Hang a 168.254.x.x IP on the Tik interface. Telnet from the Tik to the Canopy radio Change its IP through telnet ip -1 123.123.123.50 (or whatever) Change its netmask through telnet netmask -1 255.255.255.0 (or whatever) Change its gateway through telnet netgateway 123.123.123.1 (or whatever) reboot through telnet reset Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:58 AM To: Motorola III Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
for a while on fortigates and imagestreams I had that subnet on the interface with NAT, I would just change the route here on the office firewall to point to that pop if I needed to get to a default radio (or other device) windows 7 doesnt have a problem getting to that subnet through routers On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > You guys are making this hard I think > > Hang a 168.254.x.x IP on the Tik interface. > Telnet from the Tik to the Canopy radio > Change its IP through telnet ip -1 123.123.123.50 (or whatever) > Change its netmask through telnet netmask -1 255.255.255.0 (or whatever) > Change its gateway through telnet netgateway 123.123.123.1 (or whatever) > > reboot through telnet reset > > Paul > > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill > Prince via Af > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:58 AM > To: Motorola III > Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 > > > Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP > (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default > configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. > > I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies > unless I go directly from the MT. > > -- > bp > > -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
I think netmap will do what I need. I "think" I can netmap the 169.254.1.1 IP address to an unused IP on my local network. Not sure how netmap actually works, but I'll give it a rip. bp On 9/23/2014 9:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. Packets go out, but don't come back. bp On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for the radio to "see" you.
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
No, because the radio considers itself to be the gateway. Now, you could probably set up a NAT type thing. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:58 AM To: Motorola III Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
You guys are making this hard I think Hang a 168.254.x.x IP on the Tik interface. Telnet from the Tik to the Canopy radio Change its IP through telnet ip -1 123.123.123.50 (or whatever) Change its netmask through telnet netmask -1 255.255.255.0 (or whatever) Change its gateway through telnet netgateway 123.123.123.1 (or whatever) reboot through telnet reset Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:58 AM To: Motorola III Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
The Canopy SM does not have a gateway. Therefore it can't route. You will have to VPN to that Tik and have the Tik give you a 169.254.1.x/16 address. Then you should be able to access the SM Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/23/2014 09:11 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. Packets go out, but don't come back. bp On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for the radio to "see" you.
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
IIRC newer windows versions will not route to a 169.254 IP that is outside your local network - if I need to access a SM on that IP that is behind a router, I need to do as administrator "route add 169.254.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 put.routers.ip.here" --Original Message-- From: Bill Prince via Af Sender: Af To: Motorola III ReplyTo: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Sent: Sep 23, 2014 10:58 AM Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Add a 169.254.1.x ip to the interface then src-nat to that ip for traffic exiting that interface. AP shouldn't know the difference then. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rob-lists=bpsnetworks@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:58 AM To: Motorola III Subject: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0 Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Doesn't work if I change the MT address to 169.254.1.3/24 either. Packets go out, but don't come back. bp On 9/23/2014 9:05 AM, Larry Smith via Af wrote: On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for the radio to "see" you.
Re: [AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
On Tue September 23 2014 10:58, Bill Prince via Af wrote: > Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default > IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the > default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the > way back. > > I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies > unless I go directly from the MT. Believe the Cambium default is 169.254.1.1/24 (255.255.255.0 netmask) and your /16 (255.255.0.0) is broadcasting on the wrong address for the radio to "see" you. -- Larry Smith lesm...@ecsis.net
[AFMUG] routing to/from 169.254.0.0
Is there a way to route to/from a Cambium radio that is on the default IP (169.254.1.1) through a Mikrotik? I think the issue is that the default configuration does not have a gateway. So it doesn't know the way back. I put the interface on the MT on 169.254.1.3/16, but don't get replies unless I go directly from the MT. -- bp
