[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] BT Home Hub 5A: configure Red Ethernet as DMZ interface (FS#490) and fix Red Ethernet switch port (FS#390)
Mauro Mozzarelli
mauro at ezplanet.net
Thu Feb 16 09:37:41 PST 2017
Mathias,
I have just come across a weird side effect of the following change.
With the patch applied it is no longer possible to communicate via the
red Ethernet between 2 BT Home Hub 5, but communications are fine
between a HH5 and any other device (??).
diff --git a/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
b/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
index 7f19e52..59b6cee 100644
--- a/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
+++ b/target/linux/lantiq/dts/BTHOMEHUBV5A.dts
@@ -244,15 +244,6 @@
phy-mode = "gmii";
phy-handle = <&phy13>;
};
- };
-
- wan: interface at 1 {
- compatible = "lantiq,xrx200-pdi";
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <0>;
- reg = <1>;
- lantiq,wan;
-
ethernet at 5 {
compatible = "lantiq,xrx200-pdi-port";
reg = <5>;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the above patch applied (and changing board.json to include port 5)
the red Ethernet appears as eth0.2
SCENARIO with above patch applied:
red Ethernet appears as eth0.2 and assigned an IP
2 x bt (BTHomeHub5) routers (a and b) plus other devices (od)
bt(a), bt(b) and od have eth0.2 on the same subnet
ping bt(a) --> bt(b) no response (tcpdump shows arp request from bt(a)
mac address and no arp response from bt(b)
ping bt(b) --> bt(a) as above
ping bt(a or b) --> od OK
ping od --> bt(a or b) OK
SCENARIO without above patch applied
red Ethernet as eth1.2 and bridged (it does not work if I do not create
a bridge and assign eth1.2 to the bridge, but we knew this)
ping bt(a) --> bt(b) OK
ping bt(b) --> bt(a) OK
ping bt(a or b) --> od OK
ping od --> bt(a or b) OK
Mauro
On 13/02/17 07:27, Mathias Kresin wrote:
> 12.02.2017 17:40, Mauro Mozzarelli:
>> You are correct that the name does not matter, however if we have
>> routers already configured to associate the xDSL or Ethernet to WAN,
>> when we flash the new firmware we will have to reconfigure them to
>> rename the device. This is all good if the routers are physically there,
>> but when the routers are in remote unmanaged locations (like I have) it
>> becomes a problem. Renaming the interface is a small thing, but it will
>> impact many end users. I advocate to maintain WAN for xDSL out of my use
>> case interest and also because personally I think an xDSL is truly a WAN
>> interface whilst an Ethernet can be anything.
>
> Please keep in mind that your existing config is not touched and the
> wan network still exists with my patches applied. I fail to see how it
> should break existing xDSL configs.
>
> But you are right, the ethernet wan config will most likely not work
> any longer for people who managed to workaround all the outlined
> issues. But the same applies to your patch, since you are moving the
> ethernet wan from eth1 to eth0 as well. Lets hope that only the
> minority of the uses managed to configure a working ethernet wan.
>
> Mathias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
--
Mauro Mozzarelli
eMail: mauro at ezplanet.net
Phone: +44 7941 727378
More information about the Lede-dev
mailing list