Business Community > Routers > ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
< Routers

ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.

ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-07 09:59:15 - last edited 2023-05-10 12:42:29
Tags: #Gateway ACL
Model: ER7206 (TL-ER7206)  
Hardware Version: V1
Firmware Version: 1.3.0 Build 20230322 Rel.70951

After installing ER7206, nearly all internet IPs of 185 x.x.x segment are routed to the tp-links virt. interface 169.254 11.21 and not going out, doesn't matter, what I try to set up, or make some routes.

 

PING ueberbrueckungshilfe - unternehmen de (185 49.x.x) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 169 254.11.21 (169.254.11.21) icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 169 254 11 21 (169254.11.21) icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 169 254 11 21 (169 254.11 21) icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 169 254 11 21 (169 254 11 21) icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
From 169 254 11 21 (169.254.11.21) icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable

 

since, its VERY important for us to have the possibility to access FULL internet, we just need a solution.

 

thank you @Fae @Hank21 

 

  0      
 
  0      
 
#1
Options
1 Accepted Solution
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21-Solution
2023-05-10 12:21:46 - last edited 2023-05-10 12:42:29

  @Hank21 @Fae 

 

Hello again

 

just wanted to explain a solution.

After hours of searching of myself, I found a misconfig by the customer in Wireguard peer - 172.16.1.12/3 !! and not 172.16.1.12/32

 

that was it.

 

thanks for helping ;-)

Recommended Solution
  2  
  2  
#8
Options
7 Reply
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-07 13:21:04

  @kogan 

 

I think we need more detail on how the 7206 is being used.  For starters, why do you have public IPs apparently on the LAN side?  Omada routers are NAT-only, and don't do traditional routing...hence the lack of RIP, OSPF, BGP....

 

A 169.254.x.x is an autoconfig IP....the type of IP assigned to an interface when the OS cannot get one and hasn't been told either.  This would tend to indicate that the router is confused with its configuration and/or the configuration is incomplete or invalid.

<< Paying it forward, one juicy problem at a time... >>
  0  
  0  
#2
Options
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-07 17:29:49

  @d0ugmac1 

thanks for the fast reply.

I think, its a little bit misunderstanding, since I didnt wrote, that I use by my customer public IPs in local network.

 

Configuration is very, very simple, Omada -> ER7206 with 3 VLANs (1, 11, 12). Internet is working over PPOE on WAN Port. Thats all. No other ACL oder Routing Rules.

only 3 Portforwardings to manage their proxmox server.

 

Strange thing is, that we cant arrive https://www ueberbrueckungshilfe-unternehmen de/

when we ping this site, so it comes to the public IP 185.x.x.x. I tested a lot of things, seems, that all public IPs from 180.x to 18x.x are NOT pingable or reachable, cause ER7206 wants to go over 169.254.11.21 as hop, which I dont understand. Tracerouting says same. First ip is gateway , 10.1.10.x , second is 169.254.11.21 and NOT reachable ?!?

Some other public ip, google, or 85.x.x.x just works. I didnt configurate anything, that could just make this "bug"

 

I have another customer with very, very similar config, 4 VLANs, ER7206 - here everything is working properly, 185.x.x.x can be reached and opened.

  0  
  0  
#3
Options
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-07 18:43:47

  @kogan 

 

What's the subnet mask on the WAN IP assigned by PPPoe?

 

Change the LAN subnet to use private IPs, attach a device, get a private IP and then test access to the 185.x.x.x address from there.  I have no idea what the routing kernel will do if it sees the same subnet on both sides of the NAT...so you should never even risk that happening..ie just don't use public IP's on the LAN side period.

 

 

<< Paying it forward, one juicy problem at a time... >>
  0  
  0  
#4
Options
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-08 06:15:33

  @d0ugmac1 

 

IP is 79.140.x.x subnet.

 

I dont use public IPs @ LAN. Unfortunately, I am not onsite , can only manage this place remote.

  0  
  0  
#5
Options
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-08 15:07:20

@Fae @Hank21 

 

Hello again

 

please, open a ticket for me - its VERY urgent!!! seems to be ER7206, that is not working properly.

 

thank you

  0  
  0  
#6
Options
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21
2023-05-09 06:26:36

Hello @kogan,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to post the issue on TP-Link community!

 

To better assist you, I've created a support ticket via your registered email address, and escalated it to our support engineer to look into the issue. The ticket ID is TKID230514850, please check your email box and ensure the support email is well received. Thanks!

Once the issue is addressed or resolved, welcome to update this topic thread with your solution to help others who may encounter the same issue as you did.

 

Many thanks for your great cooperation and patience!

Best Regards! >> Omada EAP Firmware Trial Available Here << >> Get the Latest Omada SDN Controller Releases Here << *Try filtering posts on each forum by Label of [Early Access]*
  0  
  0  
#7
Options
Re:ER7206 -> 185 49 x x unreachable, virt. interface 169.254.11.21-Solution
2023-05-10 12:21:46 - last edited 2023-05-10 12:42:29

  @Hank21 @Fae 

 

Hello again

 

just wanted to explain a solution.

After hours of searching of myself, I found a misconfig by the customer in Wireguard peer - 172.16.1.12/3 !! and not 172.16.1.12/32

 

that was it.

 

thanks for helping ;-)

Recommended Solution
  2  
  2  
#8
Options

Information

Helpful: 0

Views: 443

Replies: 7

Tags

Gateway ACL
About Us
Press
Copyright © TP-Link Corporation Limited. All rights reserved.