Update AdGuard Home to the newest version first.
noticed on 4.6.2 release candidate that sometimes i get some errors in the VPN client log when the router turns on. The vpn client starts with the router.
VPN and AdGuard seem to function normally though
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: Warning: Section @zone[3] (wgclient) has no device, network, subnet or extra options
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Forward 'wgclient' -> 'wan'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Forward 'lan' -> 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Forward 'guest' -> 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Forward 'wgclient' -> 'wan'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Forward 'lan' -> 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Forward 'guest' -> 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: Warning: fw3_ipt_rule_append(): Can't find target 'prerouting_wgclient_rule'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: Warning: fw3_ipt_rule_append(): Can't find target 'postrouting_wgclient_rule'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:06:46 2024 daemon.notice procd: /etc/rc.d/S99adguardhome: * Zone 'wgclient'
Sun Jul 7 14:07:15 2024 daemon.notice netifd: Network device 'wgclient' link is up
Sun Jul 7 14:07:15 2024 daemon.notice netifd: Interface 'wgclient' is now up
Sun Jul 7 14:07:15 2024 user.notice wgclient-up: env value:T_J_V_ifname=string J_V_address_external=1 USER=root ifname=wgclient ACTION=KEYPAIR-CREATED N_J_V_address_external=address-external SHLVL=2 J_V_keep=1 HOME=/ HOTPLUG_TYPE=wireguard T_J_V_interface=string J_V_ifname=wgclient T_J_V_link_up=boolean LOGNAME=root DEVICENAME= T_J_V_action=int TERM=linux SUBSYSTEM=wireguard PATH=/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin CONFIG_LIST_STATE= J_V_interface=wgclient K_J_V= action ifname link_up address_external keep interface J_V_link_up=1 J_V_action=0 T_J_V_address_external=boolean N_J_V_link_up=link-up T_J_V_keep=boolean PWD=/ JSON_CUR=J_V CONFIG_SECTIONS=global AzireVPN Mullvad FromApp group_3207 group_6174 group_5493 group_1426 peer_2001 peer_2002 peer_2003 peer_2004 CONFIG_cfg030f15_ports=
Sun Jul 7 14:07:15 2024 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due to ifup of wgclient (wgclient)
1 Like
The bug with not showing all online clients properly, or bugged out clients in the list, is still not fixed with 4.6.2 on Brume 2. Sometimes clients are missing, even being online, or just showing mac with no IP address.
Example:
Show as online, but missing IP, randomly flips back and forth to offline.
And it randomly vanishing from the list and popping back up, but with no IP adress. The client in this case is online and I can ping and reach it.
Another client, a tasmota device, is also right now showing as offline in the client list, where it is totally online and reachable.
Shown as offline where it is online and reachable.
Maybe something with DHCP is not properly working. All clients use DHCP.
I had similar DHCP issues along with others like new ip randomly getting assigned.
After I did an upgrade without keeping settings,.. Most of the DHCP issues went however,.. even I notice IPs vanishing for few seconds and coming back online.
1 Like
We have received very few requests to add an iot network. That's why it's been stuck in the low-priority development plan.
I'm also interested in knowing why you need multiple guest networks.
For those of us who want smart devices separate, as well as a guest network for guests.
5 Likes
I kind of agree, it would be nice to have some sort of option next to guest to have a iot network option.
Of course guests can be used aswell, but personally i'd disagree mixing the guests with iot.
When a guest had a infected device it could infect others, or otherwise the iot to the guests.
Plus i don't think this would make the ui more bloated or less intuitive perse.
3 Likes
I use the 2.4 for IOT and the 2.4 guest for guests 
But that's just me 
1 Like
A network for IoT would be awesome, would be nice to have it natively on the GUI. Maybe with an option to route IoT traffic though a VPN, same for guest, like I have configured
2 Likes
Do you have ipv6 enabled?
Is the current network mode a bridge mode?
cat /proc/oui-tertf/term
Can you please explain ? I am lost in the comments. I do have the op24 version.
@yuxin.zou Time for a 4.7.0-op24 beta as well ? Or what's the status about op24, is it being worked on or has it been paused?
5 Likes
If you use VPN client on op24 then non VPN DNS queries will go over the VPN instead of upstream or other DNS
Isn't this the case when checking "Block Non-VPN traffic" from the VPN dashbaord page ?
Not in this case, when I reported and reproduced the issue I didn't have that setting toggled to enabled
No and no. IPv6 off (default), router mode (default).
Sadly Glinet is not open for good ideas or requests. Same for example with adding multiple Wireguard client connections, which would be really important.
Hmm isn't this on their feature plan?
to be honest if it is, its not that they don't want it but the issue is more that the ui was never intended with this design in mind this includes too for when someone uses vlans and the ui features don't fully work because it is not aware of br-lan.1.
These are much bigger changes which also could break too, so i understand they take time first stabilizing other features until they go ahead with bigger features and maybe even decide to use one version only to develope one feature like this at a time.
Also i have seen a couple of issues arise, like there are still iptables artifacts, there may need new domain policies based on nftables which previous wasn't possible (the wildcarding thing), and i believe not so long ago for openwrt 24+ there are plans to ditch iptables fully by OpenWrt so there is alot comming towards them too.
Edit:
If i can bring a suggestion for when such new system gets build it would be nice to have more interoperability meaning that the wireguard configuration can work seemingless with the luci-proto-wireguard, it may be a longer effort but it makes developing compatibility easier, also because some other packages like banip don't always manage to get a uplink ip, or with vxlans its always questionable if it works 
1 Like
To be fair @mkdr and @mrschwarz, this is a beta testing thread, not a feature request thread. It would probably be more helpful for everyone if you kept on topic in this thread and start another for more feature requests.
1 Like
You're right. I was responding to another thread that didn't belong.
1 Like