Re: Incrementing interfaces

Margerita Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:06:08 -0700

Hi,

... browsing your examples and Wiki pages and got it. Correct syntax is:

declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.[]",null,{path: 0});
declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.[Name:Interface1]", {path:1}, {path:1});
declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.[Name:Interface2]", {path:1}, {path:1});

what made on CPE:

InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.1.Name Interface1
InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.2.Name Interface2

asterix wasn't needed :)

thanks!

br,

--
Michal

W dniu 2017-10-10 o 22:31, Dan Morphis pisze:

I'm honestly not sure. I just checked my code, and this works fine for me:

declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.*.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANPPPConnection.*.PortMapping.[]", null, {path: 0}); //Delete all port forwards that don't match the next declares

declare('InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.*.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANPPPConnection.*.PortMapping.[InternalClient:192.168.1.100,PortMappingDescription:test,PortMappingProtocol:TCP,PortMappingEnabled:1,RemoteHost:,InternalPort:8088,X_BROADCOM_COM_InternalPortEnd:8088,ExternalPort:8088,ExternalPortEndRange:8088]', {path:1}, {path: 1});

Try doing this:

declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.[]", null, {path: 0});

declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.*.[Name:Interface1]", {path:1}, {path: 1});

declare("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.*.[Name:Interface2]", {path:1}, {path: 1});

That will force everything to be consistent.

-dan

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Margerita <[email protected]> wrote:

Dan,

it doesn't. 57 seconds of delay is becouse of how I do capture. TR69 starts in 54s and ends in 58s.
There is everything OK with CPE.

This is working:
declare ("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.1.Name", null, {value: "Interface1"});
declare ("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.2.Name", null, {value: "Interface2"});

And this is not (9005 response):
declare ("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.*.[Name:Interface1]", {path:1}, {path: 1});
declare ("InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.*.[Name:Interface2]", {path:1}, {path: 1});

I showed you CPE log where you can see:

tr69c:57.270:fObjectName:660:
name=ObjectName, ttype=3, value=InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.1.
tr69c:57.270:xmlData:445:xmlDATA tag=ObjectName data="">Device.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.1. found at level 4

as on wireshark log where
InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.1.
was also visible, instead of InternetGatewayDevice.WANDevice.1.WANConnectionDevice.1.WANIPConnection.1.Name
so why do you think, that it could be CPE problem? I don't get it..

br,

--
Michal
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.genieacs.com/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.genieacs.com/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: Incrementing interfaces

Reply via email to