[LEDE-DEV] FS#490 - BT Home Hub 5 Ethernet WAN Port configuration

[Mathias Kresin]

2017-02-10 14:01 GMT+01:00 Mauro M. <openwrt at ezplanet.net>:
> In response to Mathias:
>
>
> Let's have a look at the use cases for the Red Ethernet Port:
>
> 1) Classic case: Internet Home user with xDSL WAN + Wired and Wireless
> Devices
>
> SCENARIO: In this case my WAN is the xDSL port, my router has 4 Ethernet
> (yellow) ports, but I have 5 devices, so I want to BRIDGE my Red Ethernet to
> extend the available Yellow Ethernet (LAN) ports
>
> STATUS: this does not work today, see FS#390
>
>
> 2) Small Office User with xDSL and Fixed IP Subnet
>
> SCENARIO: In this case I have to disable Masquerading for my servers on the
> subnet to be addressable, also in this use case scenario I have 5 or more
> wired servers and I want to extend my switch to bridge the Red Ethernet port
>
> STATUS: as above this does not work today FS#390
>
>
> 3) Small Office User Intranet: this extends SCENARIO 2
>
> SCENARIO: I use a second router, the Red Ethernet (that I name "ewan") is
> connected to my router at (2) and is assigned a fixed IP on the subnet. The
> Yellow Ethernet switch is bridged to WiFi as "LAN". The firewall is
> configured to SNAT LAN to EWAN.
>
> STATUS: today this works by editing /etc/board.json to add port 5 to the
> switch, adding a new VLAN to Switch0 to cover port 5, creating a new network
> interface EWAN. However it works only if I create a bridge br-ewan and I add
> eth1.2 to it, it does not work if I configure eth1.2 directly to EWAN. I
> would like eth1.2 to be available in the list of interfaces (now I have to
> "know" that it exists and I have to configure it manually). Newbies might
> bang their head trying to use eth0.2 which is created by the additional
> VLAN, but it does not work.
>
>
> 4) Small Office Multi Wan: this extends SCENARIO 2 and 3
>
> SCENARIO: I have 2 xDSL WANs, one is as at (2), the second is an xDSL. The
> WAN port on my router is  configured as ADSL with pppoa-wan/pppoe-wan. The
> EWAN is connected to a router with Internet access and is assigned a fixed
> WAN IP.
>
> STATUS: as per SCENARIO 3, the Red Ethernet is configured manually by
> editing /etc/board.json
>
>
> 5) WiFi repeater: I configure the router just as a WiFi repeater, I need
> extra wired ports and I want to bridge the Red Ethernet to my LAN
>
> STATUS: as per SCENARIO 1 and 2
>
>
> 6) Home or Office user with separate xDSL Modem
>
> SCENARIO: I have an xDSL modem and I want to use pppoe over the Red Ethernet
>
> STATUS: I have never tried this scenario, but I believe this is what is
> covered by the default configuration on most routers with Ethernet WAN (I
> wonder why since I find this the least useful use case) and thus it is
> supposed to work
>
>
> SCENARIO 3 and 4 describe what are my current use cases
>
> In my 2 use cases it does not really matter whether the Red Ethernet is
> recognized as WAN. In case 3 it is sufficient that it is configurable with
> an IP, thus, whatever the name we give the interface, I would like it to
> appear by default on a fresh firmware install. To support CASES 1, 2 and 5,
> where I want to bridge my Red Ethernet to extend the ports on the switch, I
> need this to work (FS#390)
>
> I hope this helps.

No it doesn't.

What I wrote is that in case you already have a patch to fix the
issue, you should submit your patch instead of attaching it to a bug
report/feature request. If you're unsure about your approach, you
should send your patch and ask for feedback. What I not wrote is that
you should send an extended version of your bugreport/feature request
to the mailing list. I'm in doubt that anyone then me understands what
you are talking about.

But it seams to me you read only half of my response. I wrote that
I've already a fix for FS#390 and FS#490 in my staging tree and I
asked you to test my commits and send _me_ feedback via mail.

Mathias