canufrank
Occasional Visitor
If 'Start with WAN' is unset, the settings are completely ignored. I personally don't fee that this is should be considered a bug, as the user made the change. (I just wasn't anticipating it.) If the user were also obliged to delete all policy rules too, it would seem onerous.
On the other hand, if the client doesn't start due to (e.g.) authentication failing because of a bad certificate, the RPDB and (some) table 111 rules are in place, effectively blocking the specified client. The table appears as:
The other entries into table 111 must, as you surmise, be based on some assessment of success. This finally explains to me why I saw only those 5 lines when custom config options were creating errors. My [PUSH-OPTIONS] errors must have precluded the finalization of table 111.
As you say, now I must look at port forwarding again, which is still failing for me. Another thread...
On the other hand, if the client doesn't start due to (e.g.) authentication failing because of a bad certificate, the RPDB and (some) table 111 rules are in place, effectively blocking the specified client. The table appears as:
Code:
104.175.4.1 dev vlan2 scope link
192.168.0.0/24 dev br0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.1
104.175.4.0/22 dev vlan2 proto kernel scope link src 104.175.4.205
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
prohibit default
The other entries into table 111 must, as you surmise, be based on some assessment of success. This finally explains to me why I saw only those 5 lines when custom config options were creating errors. My [PUSH-OPTIONS] errors must have precluded the finalization of table 111.
As you say, now I must look at port forwarding again, which is still failing for me. Another thread...