Replies: 17 comments
-
Hi Eirik, that is great that I was able to help you out somehow! I have also been pondering about how to implement a direct bridge between the VM's Ethernet and wireless interfaces. That was the page I have checked on the topic: https://wiki.debian.org/BridgeNetworkConnections#Bridging_with_a_wireless_NIC but eventually I have not got to come up with an actual proof-of-concept implementation. I have not considered two-way 1:1 NAT, that is also definitely something I should look into -- thanks for the hint. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It's a bit hacky but I wrote a UDP to TAP script to make a remote ethernet device appear to be local to a VirtualBox instance. Presumably one could create a tap device on both Linux and FreeBSD and then just tunnel between them, using UDP or something better. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks for the idea @cqexbesd, I will investigate that one as well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
At least on the FreeBSD side, for bridging of wifi to work, the sysctl |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I agree that this is needed. At the moment I'm unable to open any ports on my laptops using |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I applied the following rule in order to get this working (This isn't a permanent solution but will help): (Applied inside the VM.. which is read-only but you can still manipulate the IP table):
Once you do that and test that you can reach whatever service you need on the host side (from another machine), you can do the following in the VM to get the final rules:
Once you have that, you can dump all of that and put it back in your host's (The one line that translates to the above yields: You'll need to know the assigned double-NATTed IP on the host side before you can do this. Although given that we are most likely only ever going to have 1 IP assigned (or you can just use a static IP as well), you can just use that one IP across all these rules. I get ping times from |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have changed the interaction between I was doing some investigation on how to create a bridge between @fearedbliss I think 10 MB/s is quite good on a 100-Mbit network, theoretically it cannot be faster than 12.5 MB/s but that is without signalling and such I guess. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@pgj Sorry, I should have said it's a 10/100/1000 connection! I forgot to write the 1000 haha. So that first laptop is using gigabit Ethernet via my type C Anker dongle's Ethernet port. The other laptop (framework) was using wifibox. I'm not surprised there is a drop in performance given the wireless part but I feel it could still be faster than 10 MB/s. Regarding the firewall rules, yea it would be nice if all the ports could be automatically routed. But an easily configurable firewall configuration would be a good workaround for now. It gives you a little bit of security as well haha. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Another case this has come up for me is Chromecast. I'm assuming Chromecasts use some sort of multicast and my Chromium no longer can see it. FWIW, I'd be totally fine with wifibox CLI tool giving me the tools to setup these port forwards on the fly as a first-step. I can just run a script on first run every time. I'd rather be able to get something going than wait |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If this is about multicast UDP you can use the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think, unfortunately, I just don't know enough about networking yet to properly play with this for Chromecast. I think I need to do some mDNS stuff (I have built the latest version of alpine with mDNS and forwarding). I'm not entirely sure which forwarding I need. I found some iptables commands online but it looks like it needs the multiport iptables extension which isn't in alpine, and the port range is large, and I haven't gotten a chance to script it out. But I'm also kind of flailing about and not really sure how to debug whatever change I make (for example, just turning mDNS on didn't have an impact). I know this is outside wifibox directly, but if you have any recommendations as what to do, I'd love to know. Chromecasting is a nice feature to have. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Mind that simply enabling the Anyhow, in theory the following should be enough for Chromecasting:
Looks like nothing else is needed here, just the reintroduction of the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
All right, in the latest version of freebsd-wifibox-port the
where Let me know if this works -- in case of success, I can document this on the manual page. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Unfortunately I do not know the IP of the chromecast and because Google is Google I was not having luck finding it. So I tried the following (this is what the whole
I'm not sure if removing the Maybe I can install |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sure, some more analytics can probably help. But please mind that you cannot simply install Alpine packages to the guest image. Instead, they have to be added for the port's |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have added support for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have the following suggestion to allow just a straight forward 1:1 static Setting Up 1:1 NAT on Alpine Linux with DHCP-assigned Public IP
This setup ensures that your 1:1 NAT configuration is maintained even when the public IP address changes due to DHCP lease renewal on Alpine Linux. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi,
wifibox works quite well for me; ThinkPad Carbon X1 Gen6, Intel 8265 / 8275 (wouldn't know which). Thank you very much - I did something similar (but with much less style) with OpenBSD a while back but once it broke I never bothered fixing it again :)
The one thing I would've liked to see is if there was a way to effectively bridge the interfaces in the VM with the host, in order to pass the DHCP-assigned IP through. Like this one would avoid double NAT and things that actually require the newfound bandwidth (video conferencing, uPnP stuff, services running on the host) would work better (or at all).
If briding like this isn't feasible, perhaps using two-way 1:1 NAT would be? Then at least other hosts on the local network could reach it without adding additional plumbing in the VM.
I have avoided Linux since I left Slackware around 2000-ish, so I haven't played much around in the VM and wouldn't quite know where to begin.
/Eirik
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions