Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress

Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress

Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
a week ago
Tags: #BUG
Model: ER605 (TL-R605)  
Hardware Version: V2
Firmware Version: 2.2.4 Build 20240119 Rel.44368

I think I found a bug while experimenting with Wireguard.

 

In VPN->Wireguard->Peers we're not allowed to have a duplicate.  E.g. I already have 192.168.0.0/16 I cannot enter this another time.  But I can enter 192.168.0.1/16.

 

  0      
  0      
#1
Options
2 Reply
Re:Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
a week ago - last edited a week ago

Hi @Alex_vd_B 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

In Controller mode.

It would only be a problem in standalone mode. Yet, the 192.168.0.1/16 = 192.168.0.0/16.

The system in standalone aims to avoid any overlap created and gives a warning when it is triggered. That's a generic mechanism.

I think that's the reason why you see the error in standalone mode. Yet, you can set up 192.168.0.1/16 and save it, and will change to 192.168.0.0/16. In fact, it still works.

 

I think this is an overall mechanism in standalone mode.

Best Regards! If you are new to the forum, please read: Howto - A Guide to Use Forum Effectively. Read Before You Post. Look for a model? Search your model NOW Official and Beta firmware. NEW features! Subscribe for the latest update!Download Beta Here☚ ☛ ★ Configuration Guide ★ ☚ ☛ ★ Knowledge Base ★ ☚ ☛ ★ Troubleshooting Manual ★ ☚ (Disclaimer: Short links are used above solely for guidance to TP-Link subdomains and are safe and tracker-free. Exercise caution with short links from non-official members on forums. We are not liable for external content or damage from non-official members' link use.)
  1  
  1  
#2
Options
Re:Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
a week ago

  @Clive_A  Thank you for responding.

 

Indeed, standalone, and indeed after entering 192.168.0.1/16 it is accepted and then modified to 192.168.0.0/16.  But then it does not seem to work (see another topic).

 

I am greeted with the following, which strongly suggests it is an ERROR in stead of a warning. Also the OK button does not work, something I would expect to work it is was only a warning message.

 

Indeed 192.168.x.y/16 with either x or y not zero does work, but given my struggles I already forgave myself thinking this is a bug.

 

If it is intended to save it this way, may I suggest a different way of reporting the warning to the user and/or documenting it. Thanks.

 

 

 

  0  
  0  
#3
Options