Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress

Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress

Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
2024-06-15 09:13:37
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
2024-06-17 03:19:40 - last edited 2024-06-17 03:26:57

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 ★ ☚ ● Be kind and nice. ● Stay on the topic. ● Post details. ● Search first. Don't be a lazy asker. ● Please don't take it for granted. ● No email confidentiality should be violated. ● S/N, MAC, and your true public IP should be mosaiced.
  1  
  1  
#2
Options
Re:Bug in Wireguard Peer AllowedAddress
2024-06-17 05:13:00

  @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