Hi.
Latest beta can be installed but after first setup WAN port (setted up in static mode) don't work.
Using LAN in NAT mode works fine.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Also it's not supported to have LAN and WAN share the same subnets so as configured may not function correctly.
by the way... I've attached my PC also direct to the NSL2 eth port and WAN is not reachable.
Flashing NSL2 with sysupgrade firmware make me missing the device.
Flashing NSL2 with factory firmware make me able to reach it at 192.168.1.1
What command can I "dump out" here to help you to understand what's happened?
--
73 de Leo IZ5FSA
"by the way... I've attached my PC also direct to the NSL2 eth port and WAN is not reachable."
It shouldn't be without special cofiguration on the PC (VLAN tagging)
the "factory" and "sysupgrade" images are exactly the same. There is no difference between the two except for the fact one is intended to be loaded after the hardware is installed and the other is intended for TFTP install.
No VLAN tagging has changed from latest stable and this beta version in PC neither in managed switch.
The only way to reach NSL after "factory" reload is via 192.168.1.1 address... if I change WAN address port (static ip) it doesn't work: is still unreachable.
LAN with NAT is reachable... Have U change the VLAN tag in the new firmware version? But this still cannot make this kind of error...
I'm walking in the dark... :-|
What can I do to give you more informations????
Some commands to run on NSL????
73 de Leo IZ5FSA
You can upload a support data file available from the Administration page.
I have a NS2-LOCO and flashed it with 16b01 upgrade/keep-settings.
It booted up no problem, joined the mesh and is fully accessible using the previous smart switch configuration.
The main thing different between my setup and yours is that I use DHCP on the WAN and "5 host direct" on the LAN.
NAT'ing onto the same network segment is unusual but I suppose it should work if you are doing one-to-one mapping.
In that case, you should use a mask of 255.255.255.255, no?