interface/wireguard/add listen-port=13231 mtu=1420 name=wireguard-inet private-key="***" Here is the config discussed, but to try it:
This post has a similar situation, Proton support got involved "defconf: accept established,related, untracked" connection-state=\Īdd action=drop chain=forward comment="defconf: drop invalid" \Īdd action=accept chain=forward comment="allow internet" in-interface-list=\Īdd action=drop chain=forward comment="Drop all else"Īdd action=masquerade chain=srcnat out-interface=ether1Īdd dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 group=ProtonVPN proposal=*1 src-address=0.0.0.0/0 \ "defconf: accept to local loopback (for CAPsMAN)" dst-address=127.0.0.1Īdd action=accept chain=input comment="allow admin" in-interface-list=LAN \Īdd action=accept chain=input comment="users to Router services" dst-port=53 \Īdd action=drop chain=input comment="Drop all else"Īdd action=accept chain=forward comment=\ "defconf: accept established,related,untracked" connection-state=\Īdd action=drop chain=input comment="defconf: drop invalid" connection-state=\Īdd action=accept chain=input comment="defconf: accept ICMP" protocol=icmp From port5, I have a switch that directs only vpn traffic to the internet and back, and whatever is connected to port5 is automatically in the VPN grouping, is this wish flawed for some reason? I want the VPN to only use port5, for example. Second problem is all of these examples are limiting IP addresses, this is not really what I care about.
Is this config clean and I can try again with the WireGuard version and see if it works?
Any help getting past this would really be appreciated. Here is the config, but its after my best attempt at removing the protonvpn connection, I was starting to get hell from everyone at the house for hosing up the internet over and over all day.
0 kommentar(er)
