WIKIABOUT

FOR TIPS, gUIDES & TUTORIALS

subscribe to our Youtube

GO TO YOUTUBE

14455 questions

17168 answers

28195 comments

0 members

Most popular tags

rut955 rut240 rut950 rutx11 rms vpn to openvpn wifi not sms trb140 firmware connection - ipsec on rutx12 rutx09 modbus
We are migrating to our new platform at https://community.teltonika.lt. Moving forward, you can continue discussions on this new platform. This current platform will be temporarily maintained for reference purposes.

Wireguard with multiple incoming VPN instances on RUTX09 with latetst firmware.

0 votes
383 views 6 comments
by anonymous
I am trying to setup multiple Wireguard VPN instances.
But only one instance appears in routing, and the second instance won´t do handshake.

Any idéas?

Kind regards

Lars-Erik

1 Answer

0 votes
by anonymous

Hello,

There is no reason why your setup cannot be set to work. What are you trying to do:

  1. One wg server interface and multiple outside clients
  2. or multiple wg server interfaces, one for each client ?

Regards,

 

by anonymous
I´m setting up separate VLAN for each customer in a hosted envirionment (so far only test environment).

Each customer shouldn´t be able to access each other, and that is working with VLAN-separation.

Each customer should have their own WG-interface so that it´s not only an IP-configuration on customer side that is stopping them from accessing another customer VLAN.

From start RUTX09 added both interfaces to the same zone. So I separated the wireguard interfaces.

With the wg-interfaces separated in zones only one interface appears in the routing table.

Regards
Lars-Erik
by anonymous

> With the wg-interfaces separated in zones only one interface appears in the routing table.

Could you be be more precise ? What is the output of ifconfig ? Of ip -4 route show ?

by anonymous 



Enabled the second instance and my first instance WGFAL doesn´t show in routing table.









default via xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx dev eth1 proto static src xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx metric 1 



default dev wwan0 proto static scope link src 100.79.109.206 metric 2 



10.0.10.0/24 dev WGDala proto kernel scope link src 10.0.10.1 



10.0.10.3 dev WGDala proto static scope link 



100.79.109.206 dev wwan0 proto static scope link metric 2 



192.121.58.0/24 dev eth1 proto static scope link metric 1 



192.168.20.0/24 dev br-lan proto static scope link metric 5 



192.168.30.0/24 dev eth0.30 proto static scope link metric 7 



192.168.40.0/24 dev eth0.40 proto static scope link metric 8 




















 












by 
anonymous













Found the issue! :) 



Both instances was running on the same listen port.



Changed to 51821 on the second instance and both instances are up and running! 



Time to check out for the weekend. :)




















 












by 
anonymous













That's a good enough reason for failure!




















 












by 
anonymous













Yes for sure!

And of course the firewall rule had to be edited, and the new port included.



Thanks for helping me think a little. ;)