Static route issues (was "Can someone try www.gog.com please?")

Forums › Quic › Static route issues (was "Can someone try www.gog.com please?")

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

yitz

2052 posts

Uber Geek

#3342474 13-Feb-2025 11:54

Looks like they'll have to offer you guys an IPv4 routed subnet to work around the issue 😉

There's nothing wrong with the route table entry itself, that is just convention and traffic is pointed to the router itself but there must be some sort of filtering happening after that.

So I wonder what the problem is with the firmware script? Are they trying to do fancy forwarding/filtering like hairpin NAT / NAT loopback (is that a check box feature you can turn off on this router)?

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79128 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3342475 13-Feb-2025 11:56

yitz:

Looks like they'll have to offer you guys an IPv4 routed subnet to work around the issue 😉

There's nothing wrong with the route table entry itself, that is just convention and traffic is pointed to the router itself but there must be some sort of filtering happening after that.

So I wonder what the problem is with the firmware script? Are they trying to do fancy forwarding/filtering like hairpin NAT / NAT loopback (is that a check box feature you can turn off on this router)?

The /8 entry in the routing table is wrong because any traffic to 103.* doesn't leave the router.

As I mentioned, it just happens my company's VPN is on 103.* and no, they are not on Quic either.

So when I tried accessing the VPN it just didn't work.

yitz

2052 posts

Uber Geek

#3342481 13-Feb-2025 12:15

freitasm:

The /8 entry in the routing table is wrong because any traffic to 103.* doesn't leave the router.

I'm just saying it doesn't leave the router (presumably it is the Synology router replying Host unreachable) but that's not because of the routing table entry itself (that points to the correct interface "Internet" and you would've had a similar entry on your previous ISP too) rather a bad NAT forwarding/filtering rule based on that entry.

There'll be a reason the likes of 2degrees and One NZ don't use /32 but a more arbitrary subnet mask when doing DHCP. I've seen anything from /18 to /28.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4