On 29/08/17 10:33, Federico Capoano wrote:
> Great job Rohith, the post looks very good.
>
> I would like to take this change to encourage all those who are
> following this mailing list to publish more blog posts about how they
> use OpenWISP!
>
> So many people are using OpenWISP 2 in the shado
Right, the following json did it for me.
{
"firewall": [
{
"config_name": "rule",
"config_value": "SSH_WAN",
"proto": "tcp",
"dest_port": "22",
"target": "ACCEPT",
"src": "wan"
}
]
}
--
You received th
{
"firewall": [
{
"config_name": "rule",
"config_value": "SSH_WAN",
"proto": "tcp",
"dest_port": "22",
"target": "ACCEPT",
"src": "wan"
}
]
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Right, the following json did it for me.
{
"firewall": [
{
"config_name": "rule",
"config_value": "Acesso_SSH_from_WAN",
"proto": "tcp",
"dest_port": "22",
"target": "ACCEPT",
"src": "wan"
}
]
}
--
Yo
After investigating this for a while, I found out there's a
misunderstanding:
you are trying to use the policy routing feature (ip rule) instead of the
firewall feature (which is basically a wrapper to iptables), but the
firewall feature is not supported in netjsonconfig yet (you can use the
Hey Saurabh,
did you have any chance to test the feature in the development version of
openwisp-users?
Federico
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:58:40 PM UTC+2, Federico Capoano wrote:
>
> Great, for further technical details regarding the question, please use
> stackoverflow because most of t
Great job Rohith, the post looks very good.
I would like to take this change to encourage all those who are following
this mailing list to publish more blog posts about how they use OpenWISP!
So many people are using OpenWISP 2 in the shadow and stay silent about it.
That's bad for the communit
