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]

So you could ping the 192.168.100.1 itself or were you pinging 192.168.50.223? If you were able to ping 192.168.100.1 that is interesting. Still interesting that you can't get to computer 2 but you can get to 100.1 on router 2. But yeah, I would say try the new firmware and see what you get for a result for the trace route.

[Saltgrass]

Pinging either 192.168.100.1 or 192.168.50.223 seems to work fine.

[Saltgrass]

This is the trace route from the latest firmware update to the computer (.107) on the second router.  It looks like it does not get to the 192.168.50.223 part.

C:\Windows\System32>tracert 192.168.100.107

Tracing route to 192.168.100.107 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 4 ms 2 ms 1 ms GT-BE98_Pro-BA00 [192.168.50.1]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.

[historypsi]

Yep, that's what I'm seeing. Basically you have a route defined in route 1, but it's not being used. It got broken in this last update. But this helps confirm that it's a firmware issue vs a hardware issue. I have no idea why they keep trying to get me to RMA the router when I report a bug lol. That's the exact behavior I get when I update. Thanks for your help! Are you able to ping 192.168.100.1 right now just out of curiosity?

[Saltgrass]

I can still ping both 192.168.100.1 and .50.223

The instructions for this, as you pointed out, say if you use the .0 instead of .1, you should be able to share between subnets.  Finding out why this does not seem to be happening seems to be part of your situation.  I think I will go back to using .1 instead of .0 and see if that makes any difference.

I will be resetting my router in a couple of hours if you don't need anything else.

[historypsi]

Yeah all good. You helped me prove there's a bug somewhere for sure.

[jzchen]

There are a bunch of security issues repaired in this release.  I would not be surprised if this is what is causing an issue with the way you have it set up.

But because my goal has always been the opposite, to create one LAN for all clients, I have very little/no experience with double NAT.

[historypsi]

If a security patch broke this then they've got a bug for sure in the code. But I haven't done anything special beyond a static route and it was functioning exactly how it should've prior to the last release. It's only double Nat'ing if you've told your 2nd router to NAT the IP addresses behind it. Otherwise the primary router will see it as the IP it gets from DHCP. Just really depends on your use case. For what i'm doing I need a 2nd network with its own router so I can create GRE and IPSEC tunnels for testing purposes that doesn't affect my home network. Gotta keep the MRS. happy lol.