Messages

1

Development and Code Review / Re: APC UPS new plugin

« on: August 07, 2024, 05:39:10 pm »

Droid999, thank you for this, I've really missed this widget since update!

I followed the instructions but I get "Failed to load widget" showing in the widget frame.

The culprit was this line in my case:

Code: [Select]

rows.push([this.translations['t_int_temp'], this.data['status']['ITEMP']['value']]);
Apcupsd status page does not report the ITEMP metric, which leads to js error.
I've simply commented the line out and now the widget works perfectly fine!

You can try to determine the culprit in your case by opening dev console, which might have an error similar to the one I had:

Code: [Select]

Failed to load content for widget: Apcupsd, Error:
TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'this.data['status']['ITEMP']['value']')
In this case, open the Apcupsd.js, find the line mentioned in the error message and remove / comment it out.

2

Development and Code Review / Re: APC UPS new plugin

« on: August 02, 2024, 03:47:57 pm »

Just installed an RJ45 --> USB cable between my APC CS 500 and my OPNSense. What am I supposed to choose in the settings for (current choice):

UPS cable type (Smart)
UPS type (apcsmart)

I've got my Back-UPS ES 850G2, which also uses the RJ45 --> USB cable, set up with these settings:
UPS Cable Type = USB
UPS Type = usb

3

Development and Code Review / Re: APC UPS new plugin

« on: August 02, 2024, 03:43:05 pm »

Could anyone say something on the new widgets support (>24.7)?
I updated my instance a few days ago and the widget is gone. Turns out you need a new kind of widget now.
Does this plugin even get support still? The latest commit was 2 years ago.
Could we maybe all contribute a little?
I'm a web dev, I could make the UI work, though I have no idea of how to develop opnsense plugins.

4

Virtual private networks / Re: LAN access through VPN with IP collision

« on: February 25, 2024, 11:21:22 pm »

Obviously your VPN client does not forward local addresses through the tunnel.

That's what I thought at first.
However, this should not be the case, since my wireguard "client" config clearly states to route everything through the tunnel.

Code: [Select]

[Interface]
PrivateKey = REDACTED
Address = 10.0.0.4/32
DNS = 10.0.0.1

[Peer]
PublicKey = REDACTED
PresharedKey = REDACTED
AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0/0
Endpoint = REDACTED
PersistentKeepalive = 10

The only thing I can think of to break this behavior is some iOS shenanigans.

5

Virtual private networks / Re: LAN access through VPN with IP collision

« on: February 20, 2024, 02:28:42 pm »

I don't think I understand your point here. The machine I'm trying to access only has an IPv4 address, so I don't see how implementing IPv6 in my tunnel would help here. Could you please elaborate on this?

After some digging, I understand how stupid my question really was, and I just want to confirm it here

For future readers with similar to mine understanding of ipv6 prior to this post (which was little to none): a ULA is essentially a private range for your subnet. Its usage is highly situational and usually discouraged, which is why, from my understanding, people rarely talk about it.

Since my ISP does not support ipv6, the only option I am left with is to implement ULAs in my tunnel.

Thank you for the help!
I'll report my journey with implementing ULAs here to hopefully help someone with a similar problem in the future.

6

Virtual private networks / Re: LAN access through VPN with IP collision

« on: January 29, 2024, 02:08:21 pm »

Monviech, thank you for this!

Depending on the size of your LAN, you could just change your IP Range of it to something like 10.134.55.0/24. Going into the 10.0.0.0/8 range will have a very small chance to get into collissions with other "normal" home networks.

I have considered it. However, it'd be quite a hassle to do so, since I have a few IPs hard coded in a number of config files (should've used local DNS in the first place, am I right).

Another way would be to implement IPv6. If you already have Global Unicast Addresses, they're Globally Unique and there can't be any collissions by design. Implementing that into your Wireguard Tunnel would allow you to reach all of your devices everywhere.

If not, another way would be to implement IPv6 ULAs into your Wireguard tunnel to have a dual stack Tunnel. Then you can reach your devices with either their IPv6 ULAs, or their IPv4 addresses.

I don't think I understand your point here. The machine I'm trying to access only has an IPv4 address, so I don't see how implementing IPv6 in my tunnel would help here. Could you please elaborate on this?

7

Virtual private networks / LAN access through VPN with IP collision

« on: January 29, 2024, 01:01:33 pm »

Hello there!

I've got a wireguard VPN set up on my opnsense machine, which I use to access my LAN remotely. Everything works fine unless there's a subnet collision. I wonder, if there's a way around this problem.

Say, I'm at my friend's house and connected to their WiFi. Their LAN subnet is 192.168.1.1/24.
My home LAN subnet is also 192.168.1.1/24.
Now, when I connect to my VPN I can't really access a machine on my LAN at 192.168.1.123, because that IP is taken on my friend's subnet.

Is there any workaround? Obviously, I won't be able to use 192.168.1.123 in this situation.

I could use port forwarding as a temporary solution, but it requires adding every single LAN IP manually. Also, it just intuitively seems wrong to do so.

Maybe I could use a virtual subnet to route e.g. 10.0.1.* to 192.168.1.* on my LAN, but I have no idea on how to achieve this.

That's why I'm here asking for help, please guide me

P.S. I'm no expert and I'm willing to learn, so any comments on what I might be doing wrong and what I should read first are highly appreciated.