bottleneck
Choose style:

Author Topic: Setting IPv4 address to x.x.x.0 makes web console inaccessible, reqs hard reset  (Read 7190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mrflip

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 25/10/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
I believe it is the case that the settings for "IPv4 gateway" and "IPv4 address" must not be identical (see my tale of woe, below).

If so, the Almond+ should not allow you to set them identically. Doing so prevents access to the web console and requires a hard reset to correct.

-----

On first setup I decided to relocate the subnet to 192.168.x.x, because that's how I've always had my home network. And on past routers I've been used to having the http console and the gateway live at the same IP, namely 192.168.23.0.

When I entered the IP address of 192.168.23.0, the router I assume set the gateway and the web console at 192.168.23.0... I could get a DHCP address in 192.168.23.x, I could connect to the internet, etc. I could not, however, connect to the web console -- http://192.168.23.0 returned an access denied response. And you can only change that setting from the web console, not from the securifi cloud.

A hard reset later, I set the web console to 192.168.23.254 and the gateway explicitly to 192.168.23.0, and now everything is working like Hoyle.

Offline sorphin

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Thanks: 2
  • Registered : 22/05/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
curious why you're attempting to use the .0 address. .0 is reserved for network address just like .255 is reserved for broadcast. now if you were doing say 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.0.254 those would be valid.  using .0 shouldn't have even been allowed by the A+.

jjoepaulines

  • Guest
we are aware of this validation issue in the LAN page. It's in our to-do list.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 10:05:49 pm by Joe »

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Let me clarify this issue, we don't have validation in the input boxes, so it's possible to enter a value outside of the 1-254 range, which we'll be fixing.

Otherwise sorphin's reply is correct.

Offline mrflip

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 25/10/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
OK, yep.
Change request to "Even if user types in x.x.x.0 as address when they should know better, field should validate and reject."  ;D

Offline dsmtoday

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 27/10/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Please make sure that you check that number against the netmask, not as proposed above.  What I mean is, if you have a netmask of 255.255.0.0, then 10.10.1.0 is a perfectly valid IP address.

 

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 17 queries.