RUT956 not reachable but WireGuard connection is established

NETWORKING SOLUTIONS
1

Hello everyone, I couldn’t ping an RUT956 through wireguard tunnel. I’m connect a RUT956 to my server via wireguard. The following wireguard configuration is set on the router:

[instance]
Address = 10.252.1.14/32
PrivateKey = ...
MTU = 1300

[peer]
PublicKey = ...
PresharedKey = ...
AllowedIPs = 10.252.1.0/32
Endpoint = vpn.xxxxx.de:51820
PersistentKeepalive = 15

A connection is established:

wg show (server):

peer: ...
  preshared key: (hidden)
  endpoint: ...:15130
  allowed ips: 10.252.1.14/32
  latest handshake: 1 hour, 53 seconds ago
  transfer: 26.77 KiB received, 10.47 KiB sent

wg show (RUT956):

peer: ...
  preshared key: (hidden)
  endpoint: ...:51820
  allowed ips: 10.252.1.0/32
  latest handshake: 31 seconds ago
  transfer: 35.02 KiB received, 4.35 KiB sent
  persistent keepalive: every 15 seconds

Issue:

Even though the connection is established, I cannot ping the router (ping 10.252.1.14) from the server, nor can I ping the server (10.252.1.0) from the router.

I have already set all firewall rules to ACCEPT, but the issue persists.

I have already performed a factory reset, but the issue persists.

Additional Information:

  • I have 23 other routers (both RUT955 and RUT956) connected to the same server via WireGuard, and ping works fine on all of them.
  • The problematic router has the same firmware and identical configuration as the working ones.
  • Despite this, it behaves differently and is not reachable via ping.
  • An factory reset

Question:

Does anyone have an idea where else I should look?

2

Hello,

With an interface address of 10.252.1.14/32 and Allowed IPs set to 10.252.1.0/32 the router has no way to reach the server.
Set instead the IP address of the tunnel to 10.252.1.14/24, ping will at least be able to send echo requests to the server.
Using x.y.z.0 for an IP address is risky this value is reserved for the network part and the behavior of the interface is implementation dependant.

Regards,

3

Hi Flebourse,

thx very much, u made my day! 10.252.1.14 with subnet mask 32 doesn’t make any sense at the interfaces. With /24 it’s work!!

4

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.