GL-MV1000 with AdGuard all clients show as localhost

Nacho · 2022-09-22T19:40:33.068Z

I have more than 60 devices connected (including all the lights of the house). I don’t see how that can be better option.

I’ll wait til the dev team improves this.

wcs2228 · 2022-09-22T23:48:06.474Z

Were you previously running Pi-hole on a router (like Adguard Home on a GL.iNet router), or on a separate device (like Raspberry Pi)?

I do not work for and I am not directly associated with GL.iNet

Nacho · 2022-09-23T07:16:36.417Z

I had it on a separate device (which makes it more difficult to handle, more space, cables, potential issues…).
It’s not a big deal to non have the info “by device”, or at least is better than having two different devices, but I used to take a look at the stats before, and more info about clients (and their attempt to reach some websites).
I hope this can be fixed somehow anytime in the future, it’s one of the reasons I bought the router (and as I bought the Slate AX for traveling too, I wish I could see that info too when I travel as well).

spencerthayer · 2022-09-26T17:40:41.701Z

This solution ended up working for me.

qdolan · 2022-10-10T14:15:47.422Z

You can achieve the same ‘fix’ without having to touch the dnmasq or adguard configs, just go into Luci and add a port forwarding rule that forwards all tcp & udp traffic from ‘lan’ to ‘this device’ on port 53 to ‘lan’ port 3053. This will bypass dnsmasq instead of having it forward the request. Arguably the router should probably add this rule automatically when you turn on adguard

Guillaume · 2022-10-17T07:53:23.644Z

that sound like an awesome solution

can you explain a bit more ?
in luci is it in the menu firewall and then the tab port forwards ?

do you have screenshots for this setup as a working example ?

thanks

wcs2228 · 2022-10-17T15:06:11.855Z

My understanding is that LAN-to-LAN port forwarding will not work because the traffic does not go through the firewall. Can users confirm that it is working?

I do not work for and I am not directly associated with GL.iNet

qdolan · 2022-10-18T05:13:36.719Z

wcs2228:

My understanding is that LAN-to-LAN port forwarding will not work because the traffic does not go through the firewall

You can port forward when the destination is the firewall/router itself. It works fine for me otherwise I wouldn’t have suggested it.

luci should describe the match rule as ‘Incoming IPV4 From “lan” to “this device”, port 53’ and the action as ‘Forward to “lan” port 3053’. Basically it’s saying “anything received from lan to router-lan-ip:53 rewrite to go to router-lan-ip:3053”

qdolan · 2022-10-18T05:34:14.576Z

Guillaume:

can you explain a bit more ?
in luci is it in the menu firewall and then the tab port forwards ?

Network :: Firewall :: Port Forwards

Protocol: TCP & UDP
Source zone: lan
External port: 53
Destination zone: lan
Internal IP address: any
Internal port: 3053

ChrisP · 2022-10-21T02:27:28.110Z

Wonderful, This is just what I was looking for. Thank you very much @qdolan !

beeeners1012 · 2022-11-08T01:28:41.836Z

Finally. this is all i have to say. FINALLLYYYYY!!!

Max3 · 2022-11-16T17:31:12.379Z

The port forwarding works well, however it breaks vpn policies based on “Target Domain or IP”.
If you use that port forwarding AND vpn policies based on domain/IP, the policies doesn’t work after a while (or a reboot).
Seems that a perfect solution doesn’t exist… Too bad, using different DNS for clients inside Adguard Home is just too useful in some cases.

wcs2228 · 2022-11-16T21:44:37.340Z

Try this method that disables DNS server n dnsmasq and makes AdGuardHome the native DNS server on port 53:

GL-AXT1800 (Slate AX) IPv6 and some other problems Technical Support for Routers

You can try this: I do not work for and I do not have formal association with GL.iNet

Maybe it works with VPN policies.

I do not work for and I do not have formal association with GL.iNet

ruu · 2022-11-19T19:56:43.888Z

No, cuz dnsmasq uses ipset under the hood (domain name routing based on vpn policy), so the dnsmasq bypass solution breaks the policy

wcs2228 · 2022-11-20T01:08:48.673Z

Only the DNS server function of dnsmasq would be disabled and the rest of the functions would be running, not bypassed. It should work like a separate DNS server at a different IP address.

ruu · 2022-11-20T06:08:28.059Z

portforward bypasses dnsmasq, the other solution disables dnsmasq.
if the dns query schema does not include dnsmasq, then the vpn policies will not work

wcs2228:

Only the DNS server function of dnsmasq would be disabled and the rest of the functions would be running, not bypassed. It should work like a separate DNS server at a different IP address.

ruu · 2022-11-20T06:10:37.158Z

In any case, both solutions presented break the vpn policies (name based)

Max3 · 2022-11-20T07:15:52.688Z

Thanks, that actually was the first method I tried, but it also breaks VPN policies.

wcs2228 · 2022-11-20T21:44:07.681Z

Well, it looks like another person has tried unsuccessfully before also, using an RPi AdGuardHome server … that’s too bad

Brume - VPN Policy not working when using AdGuard Home on RPi Technical Support for Routers

Hello. I have a problem which may be a bit long-winded, so I will try and explain my problem the best I can. I have a Brume (version 3.203) and I have AdGuard Home that is installed on a Raspberry Pi 4. Furthermore, I have my VPN policy enabled and set to: VPN for guest network - disabled Use VPN for all processes - disabled Domain/IP Rules - do not use VPN for the following list of websites that I don’t want to use the VPN Using the GL.iNet GUI, if I set the custom DNS to 192.168.8.4 (the I…

Max3 · 2022-11-22T10:30:59.290Z

Well, in the end I decided to use 2 routers to achieve my needs. On a Slate Plus I am running the Wireguard client with VPN policies, and a Slate AX connectet to it trough repeater is running Adguard Home with port forwarding. This way I can finally see all clients requests and I can set different DNS for clients inside Adguard Home (extremely useful for Prime videos e.g.)