Recent content by Karl Perkins

Please also note you can also use this script to enable a global deny for all hosts to UPNP (just by commenting out one line in the script), and then /jffs/config/upnp.add can have allow rules to selectively allow various hosts access to UPNP.

What the config looked like before the upnp.postconf ran: - > cat /tmp/upnp.old.config ext_ifname=eth0 listening_ip=br0 port=0 enable_upnp=yes enable_natpmp=yes secure_mode=yes upnp_nat_postrouting_chain=PUPNP upnp_forward_chain=FUPNP upnp_nat_chain=VUPNP notify_interval=60 system_uptime=yes...

#!/bin/sh # Karl Perkins - 25.9.2022 # This postconf (usually placed in /jffs/scripts/upnp.postconf, and then chmod a+x /jffs/scripts/upnp.postconf) # enables /jffs/configis/upnp.add to actually work. I've written this to hopefully still work, even if the issue # with the placement of the...

Seems to be exactly the same issue reported here: - https://www.snbforums.com/threads/strange-behavior-on-latest-merlin.47103/ and here:- https://github.com/RMerl/asuswrt-merlin.ng/issues/154

I've hit the exact same issue - and reported it here... https://www.snbforums.com/threads/arping-is-unreliable-for-wireless-clients.55799/ Seems like its more common than I thought! Is there any reliable way out of this, or is it inherently a bug from Asus code?

Does anybody have any ideas of what to try? It's really quite odd behaviour, and not unique to the latest firmware

I have Colin. Generally speaking, ping-ing or arping-ing wired-clients work perfectly from any other wired-client on the LAN. Wireless clients may appear in a wired client's arp table, but I suspect it's because they have initiated a communication from wireless to wired client. In the other...

Hi, I've noticed that arping seems very unreliable for wireless clients. It's perfectly OK for wired clients, and 100% reliable. Anybody have any ideas? No clients connected to guest wifi, and I can't see any logical reason for it to behave like it does. Here is an example...

Confirmed Colin - it worked. There are still occasionally logs like this, but very rare now. Many thanks, Karl.

Hi Colin, Absolutely correct - it was set to debug. Odd that it only started kicking out lots of these syslog entries just in the past couple of days, but that’s probably because there’s something changed with Google’s DNS, or some client locally has changed the size of it’s DNS requests...

Seeing lots of these... Mar 11 11:40:05 dnsmasq[28427]: reducing DNS packet size for nameserver 8.8.4.4 to 1280 Mar 11 11:40:05 dnsmasq[28427]: reducing DNS packet size for nameserver 8.8.8.8 to 1280 Mar 11 11:41:06 dnsmasq[28427]: reducing DNS packet size for nameserver 8.8.8.8 to 1280 Mar 11...