Static Routes broken GT-BE98 Pro 3.0.0.6.102_34491

[historypsi]

Anyone else using static routes noticed this firmware broke them? I can get it up for all of 4 pings before it drops when I readd the route and apply after deleting the route, apply. On the initial apply I can ping the other side through the gateway for the network then all connectivity drops and when it comes back up after applying....nothing. 

The pings are during the time it's applying the route. After it says "Complete" it's back to not pinging. Rolling back to the previous firmware fixes it but all the other issues prior to the new update come back. It's a lose/lose situation.

[historypsi]

Don't jack up your setup on my account. I appreciate you trying for sure! But I don't want to have you messing up what is working for you.

[Saltgrass]

I'm fine and still have the second router set up.  The AXE11000 seems to be working better and has not shown any problems with the static routes.  I can ping the second router but cannot see the computer past it, possibly security on the computer.

I am confused regarding the instructions.  They say Router (1) assign, what does that mean?  I am currently just using the WAN IP address on the second router.

[historypsi]

So your route needs a few modifications. The network should be 192.168.100.0 with a netmask of 255.255.255.0 and your gateway would be 192.168.50.200.

So you're telling your first router (192.168.50.1) that anything going to the 192.168.100.x network, send it to 192.168.50.200 to route it and not to send it to 122.66.x.x which wouldn't work because RFC 1918 addresses are not routable publicly, only privately.  

Or is the drawing incorrect with the .200 vs .223? If the WAN IP of router 2 is .223 then that would stay in your static route as is. But currently, you're only letting it route to 1 IP which is the 192.168.100.1 vs the whole 192.168.100.x which is why you would put the .0 (replace the x) and the subnet mask with 255.255.255.0 which tells it to look for all 255 IP addresses to include broadcast IPs on that network.

[Saltgrass]

I just found port forwarding, which seems to make your numbers usable.  I had tried inserting a .0 for the .1 earlier but was getting an invalid message from the router. 

It is set up the way you suggest, and I can still ping the router but not the computer.    But since it doesn't appear to work for you, maybe it isn't working for me and since I have never seen it actually work, I don't have that reference to judge.

[historypsi]

Not saying to do this, but if you want to see it work, rolling back to a previous firmware will do the trick.

[Saltgrass]

OK, I will think about it, but I need to know exactly how you are pinging and what you are pinging during your testing.

I see you say it was happening during the setup of the static route.  When I set one up, the primary router rebooted and spent some time getting the WAN address back.  So, if it happened during that period, I would understand.

[historypsi]

So basically, if you were to ping from 192.168.50.12 to 192.168.100.123, that's exactly what I'm doing. 

[Saltgrass]

Just to keep it simple, I am pinging from my Desktop (on Router 1) to Router 2.

If I ping the second routers WAN address, 192.168.200.1 (or .0) the request times out.

I cannot ping a computer on that second router.

[historypsi]

Should be from computer 1 behind router 1 to computer 2 behind router 2.

[Saltgrass]

I cannot reach the computer behind Router 2 or vice versa.  I will assume you believe this shows the static route is not working, even though I can reach the router.

I will start tomorrow on going back to the first released firmware and test the same way.

The MLO addition to the new firmware brings in a more involved encryption scheme.  Since the other router does not have that encryption, I suppose something like that could be involved.