Page 1 of 2

WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:59 pm
by pentago
Hi,
just successfully isntalled Gargoyle on my old TPLink 1043ND and it works awesome!

What i noticed is that my WAN IP address is different from regular standard.

Before it was 178.79.6.5 for instance, now is 10.21.0.208.

I guess this is the reason i can't successfully forward Transmission torrent client ports..

Any hints regarding this issue?

Thanks!

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:53 pm
by nworbnhoj
pentago wrote:my WAN IP address is different from regular standard.
Before it was 178.79.6.5 for instance, now is 10.21.0.208.
Can you explain a little more about your network setup.

How is the TPLink 1043ND connected to the Internet. I am guessing that there is a cable connecting the LAN port on a modem with the WAN port on the TPLink 1043ND?

Also could you post a screenshot of your setup in:
Gargoyle - COnnection - Basic - Internet/WAN

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:20 pm
by pentago
Yes, my 1043ND's WAN port is connected to a cable modem via ethernet cable. Sorry for obscure info.

This is my current setup: http://i.imgur.com/nGBUPDE.png

Does this help?

Thanks a ton!

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:36 pm
by nworbnhoj
Great, so your TPLink 1043ND WAN port is connected to you Modem LAN port and the Modem is supplying an IP address of 10.21.0.208 to the TPLink using DHCP. The WAN port on your Modem probably has something like "178.79.6.5" assigned by your ISP.

This setup should work for the most part, but it is probably the reason why you are having problems with Torrents. NAT is being done twice - at the Modem and at the TPLink. You are forwarding the Torrent ports at the TPLink but they are not passing thru the Modem properly.

Probably the best approach is to put your Modem into Bridge mode if possible. These two links have some info regarding this situation
http://www.gargoyle-router.com/wiki/dok ... ario-modem
http://www.gargoyle-router.com/wiki/dok ... ridge_mode

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:12 pm
by pentago
I'm not quite sure why would cable modem all of a sudden start assigning such IP address to a router as it worked just fine earlier while original TPLink firmware was installed.

Original firmware saw the WAN IP just as it is.

Thing with modem is that I can't access it's settings as I didn't get the login by ISP for it, no one did as a precaution for people not to mess around unnecessarily with it.

So I can't change anything on cable modem which sucks.

What do you suggest in this situation?

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:42 pm
by nworbnhoj
Can you provide any make & model information for your router?

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:04 pm
by pentago
Router: TPLink WR-1043ND v1
Modem: Cisco EPC3010 EuroDocsis 3.0 Cable Modem

Tried Googling for modem defult user/pass but didn't find the working one yet..

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:34 pm
by nworbnhoj
Hmmm - I am a bit stumped - something doesn't stack up :-(

Indeed you modem appears designed to be managed by the ISP. Is there a status page by chance? (I have seen no mention of it). It is just possible that your ISP has changed the IP scheme from 178.X.X.X to 10.X.X.X. (Seems pretty unlikely though!)

Can you post a screenshot of your port forwarding - presumably :

Gargoyle - Firewall - Individual Port Forwarding

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:14 am
by repeat
put here (link pastebin.com) output from ssh command (on the WR1043ND)
iptables -t nat --list-rules

Re: WAN IP changes

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:13 am
by pentago
To be honest I'm a bit stumbled.

I just reverted to stock TPLink firmware for couple of hours until I get some work done and then flashed Gargoyle back again.

Now everything works normally, WAN IP is just what it supposed to be, torrents are working.

Not sure what happened, I'll monitor behavior and report back if it gets weird again (hopefully it wont).

Thanks for all help guys, I really appreciate it, you rock!

Aside, I can use iptables directly to tighten the security even further?