OpenVPN Server & Client for unRAID 6.2+ (6.1 are still supported)


peter_sm

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

In China dynamic dns is blocked in almost all cases.

 

Can I use the openvpn server without dynamic dns?

 

When creating the .opvn file, it seems to put the dynamic dns in the server.opvn file. 

 

If I didn't have the dynamic dns being used, would it still work?

 

Each time the wan ip address changes, would the .opvn file need to be recreated?

Link to comment

In China dynamic dns is blocked in almost all cases.

 

Can I use the openvpn server without dynamic dns?

 

Each time the wan ip address changes, would the .opvn file need to be recreated?

 

And my external wan ip address seems to change on a daily basis with no power cycling of the modem or router. 

 

...UGGGHH...

Link to comment

Yeah, you'd need to recreate the OVPN file. That's just a general open VPN thing. Your vpn will pass requests to the IP thats configured, the DNS just lets you make sure the IP configured is always yours.

 

 

In China dynamic dns is blocked in almost all cases.

 

Can I use the openvpn server without dynamic dns?

 

Each time the wan ip address changes, would the .opvn file need to be recreated?

 

And my external wan ip address seems to change on a daily basis with no power cycling of the modem or router. 

 

...UGGGHH...

Link to comment

Yeah, you'd need to recreate the OVPN file. That's just a general open VPN thing. Your vpn will pass requests to the IP thats configured, the DNS just lets you make sure the IP configured is always yours.

OK, the dynamic DNS is solved but I am having trouble connecting to the VPN server in China.  I get no connection, and various other errors that seem to be related to no connectivity. Yet from the China office I can use my laptop to connect to another OpenVPN unRaid server in America without issue. How can I troubleshoot??

 

Possibly related issue

Background: My China office dd-wrt router is setup with PPOE and gets a wan IP address that is different from the actual external IP address reported from whatismyip.org, or IP Echo Service Since this usually means a dual nat caused by another router in the modem, and could block VPN connectivity, I had China Telecom change out the fiber modem for another one, but still get this same 2 different WAN IP problem. They insist that the different IP problem is not from the modem. Is the 2 different WAN IP issue normal for PPOE connections in China?

 

Likely I am missing something very simple and completely different. This is fiber here in China, and our offices connected with fiber in the USA always have the same IP address reported to the router even if we aren't using static IP addresses.

 

both unRaid 6.1.9 & 6.2.b21 running 2.3.11 openvpnserver.

 

Link to comment

China office dd-wrt router is setup with PPOE and gets a wan IP address that is different from the actual external IP address reported from whatismyip.org, or IP Echo Service Since this usually means a dual nat caused by another router in the modem, and could block VPN connectivity, I had China Telecom change out the fiber modem for another one, but still get this same 2 different WAN IP problem. They insist that the different IP problem is not from the modem. Is the 2 different WAN IP issue normal for PPOE connections in China?

 

It seems like I have been introduced to GG-NAT or Large Scale NAT. 

  "it makes it impossible to host services"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

 

Confirming....

Link to comment

On unRAID 6.2b23 OpenVPN does not start for me on a reboot. I get this error in syslog. Diagnostics attached.

 

Jun 13 17:18:12 Pithos root: Starting OpenVPN Server
Jun 13 17:18:12 Pithos root: Starting Openvpn server.....
Jun 13 17:18:13 Pithos sudo:     root : TTY=unknown ; PWD=/ ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/sbin/openvpn --writepid /var/run/openvpnserver/openvpnserver.pid --config /mnt/disks/vmdisk/plugins/openvpn/openvpnserver.ovpn --script-security 2 --daemon
Jun 13 17:18:13 Pithos avahi-daemon[13881]: Service "Pithos" (/services/ssh.service) successfully established.
Jun 13 17:18:13 Pithos avahi-daemon[13881]: Service "Pithos" (/services/smb.service) successfully established.
Jun 13 17:18:13 Pithos avahi-daemon[13881]: Service "Pithos" (/services/sftp-ssh.service) successfully established.
Jun 13 17:18:14 Pithos root: An error occurred, server not started!. More info in /var/log/openvpnserver.log or /var/local/emhttp/plugins/openvpnserver/openvpnserver.out
Jun 13 17:18:14 Pithos emhttp: 

 

Any ideas why it isn't starting?

 

EDIT:

 

Output from /var/local/emhttp/plugins/openvpnserver/openvpnserver.out

Options error: In [CMD-LINE]:1: Error opening configuration file: /mnt/disks/vmdisk/plugins/openvpn/openvpnserver.ovpn
Use --help for more information.

 

I guess my UD mount is not mounting fast enough?

 

Link to comment

Issue #2: I can start the OpenVPN server manually; however, once I connect my phone to the VPN I can only access my unRAID webGUI. I cannot remote desktop or access my router on that same network. This was working just fine with the same settings on Version 6.1.9 so I wonder if the new ethernet settings on b23 are conflicting with this plugin?

 

EDIT: Just noticed that I can only access the unRAID webGUI. All other traffic including a google search or local network (ie router page) do not load.

Link to comment

China office dd-wrt router is setup with PPOE and gets a wan IP address that is different from the actual external IP address reported from whatismyip.org, or IP Echo Service Since this usually means a dual nat caused by another router in the modem, and could block VPN connectivity, I had China Telecom change out the fiber modem for another one, but still get this same 2 different WAN IP problem. They insist that the different IP problem is not from the modem. Is the 2 different WAN IP issue normal for PPOE connections in China?

 

It seems like I have been introduced to GG-NAT or Large Scale NAT. 

  "it makes it impossible to host services"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

 

Confirming....

 

To get out from behind CG-NAT you can either get a static IP, (triples this cost of the internet so no go), or use IPV6.  I see unRaid is still not supporting IPV6. 

 

Assuming that unRaid gets IPV6 support, could this OpenVPN plugin offer support?  I see that from version 2.3.0 there is full support for ipv6 in openvpn.

 

Link to comment

 

Assuming that unRaid gets IPV6 support, could this OpenVPN plugin offer support?  I see that from version 2.3.0 there is full support for ipv6 in openvpn.

Absolutely the plugin would support it, I will look at it when its' enabled in unRAID.

 

//Peter

 

Link to comment

 

I will take s look at this after my work, just started ;-) but  something have been change , I facing same issue on my side .

 

 

Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

Happy to hear it's a common issue and not the normal archedraft is "special" issue.

 

I have soon a solution of the problem, but can you that have issues in beta23 send me your contents of

/boot/config/network.cfg

 

//Peter

Link to comment

I have soon a solution of the problem, but can you that have issues in beta23 send me your contents of

/boot/config/network.cfg

//Peter

 

Absolutely:

 

# Generated settings:
IFNAME[0]="br0"
BONDNAME[0]="bond0"
BONDING_MIIMON[0]="100"
BRNAME[0]="br0"
BRSTP[0]="no"
BRFD[0]="0"
BONDING_MODE[0]="1"
BONDNICS[0]="eth0"
BRNICS[0]="bond0"
DESCRIPTION[0]="br0"
USE_DHCP[0]="yes"
DHCP_KEEPRESOLV="no"
MTU[0]=""
SYSNICS="1"

Link to comment

I have the same issue as archedraft. After I connect to openVPN I can only access local addresses via IP such as my router and unraid GUI, anything that goes out to the internet fails to work. I am currently on 6.2.0-beta23 and 2016.06.15 of openVPN server.

 

Here is my network.cfg if that helps

 

# Generated settings:
USE_DHCP="yes"
IPADDR="192.168.137.30"
NETMASK="255.255.255.0"
GATEWAY="192.168.137.1"
DHCP_KEEPRESOLV="no"
DNS_SERVER1="192.168.137.1"
DNS_SERVER2=""
DNS_SERVER3=""
BONDING="no"
BONDING_MODE="1"

 

Any help would be great, thanks!

Link to comment

ifconfig:

 

root@Takoyaki:~# ifconfig
docker0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
        inet 172.17.0.1  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 0.0.0.0
        ether 02:42:75:a1:81:7b  txqueuelen 0  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.1.77  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.1.255
        ether 9c:b6:54:04:5e:a2  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 463288  bytes 539603983 (514.6 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 461869  bytes 536684656 (511.8 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
        device interrupt 18  

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING>  mtu 65536
        inet 127.0.0.1  netmask 255.255.255.255
        loop  txqueuelen 1  (Local Loopback)
        RX packets 16414  bytes 3105305 (2.9 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 16414  bytes 3105305 (2.9 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

tun0: flags=4305<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
        inet 10.8.0.1  netmask 255.255.255.0  destination 10.8.0.1
        unspec 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00  txqueuelen 100  (UNSPEC)
        RX packets 549  bytes 42122 (41.1 KiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 9  bytes 810 (810.0 B)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

 

Screenshots attached.

 

Not sure why my network.cfg is so different, I upgraded from 6.1.9 to the latest 6.2 beta just this morning.

Screen_Shot_2016-06-16_at_19_24_58.jpg.e962be8879a83148c91a802337483c02.jpg

Screen_Shot_2016-06-16_at_19_24_43.jpg.1ca6b677c40b60eb0b1800fb50b0bfb4.jpg

Screen_Shot_2016-06-16_at_19_23_50.jpg.98b3ac590ce6df9ee7b725a3fc633fe5.jpg

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.