ZebMcKayhan
Very Senior Member
well, atleast not on my system: AC86U running stable 386.3.
other scripts I'm running, like Yazfi applies its own rules but none should remove rules (?). if I hit ? in wgm after boot it says WAN killswitch is disabled, but if I execute wg_firewall and checks it says its enabled.
but I guess the ? only checks for if the rules are present in iptables. but this still means that the rule is not out-prioritized by something else, it is just not there.
nat-start is executed during normal boot so wg_firewall should place the rule there to begin with. as it does apparently start wgm properly.
Hopefully you could replicate this on your system and have this bug squashed. if not, I will produce whatever logs/info you need to track this down.
//Zeb
Edit, I get the same logs as you but before it said killswitch was enabled, which would mean the rule was put into place but somehow removed later in the boot process?
other scripts I'm running, like Yazfi applies its own rules but none should remove rules (?). if I hit ? in wgm after boot it says WAN killswitch is disabled, but if I execute wg_firewall and checks it says its enabled.
but I guess the ? only checks for if the rules are present in iptables. but this still means that the rule is not out-prioritized by something else, it is just not there.
nat-start is executed during normal boot so wg_firewall should place the rule there to begin with. as it does apparently start wgm properly.
Hopefully you could replicate this on your system and have this bug squashed. if not, I will produce whatever logs/info you need to track this down.
//Zeb
Edit, I get the same logs as you but before it said killswitch was enabled, which would mean the rule was put into place but somehow removed later in the boot process?
Last edited: