WAN IP (172.58) tagged as Local IP by Emby

[MBSki 1114]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

That means they are private if they fall into those ranges. It doesn't guarantee they are not private if they do not.

Luke, the IP I gave you doesn't fall into any of those ranges above. Nothing outside of those ranges should EVER be considered local. 

So, again, can you please fix it? 

[rbjtech 5284]

Lets go back to basics.

The OP's VPN allocated an IP 172.58.x.x - this is a WAN address, thus should be considered Remote and Emby should apply the WAN based policy.

Emby however, classified this as LAN/Local - thus no WAN based policy was applied.

There is no 'it depends' - this is WAN IP, doesn't matter if it's a VPN or an ISP supplied IP - is is not an RFC1918 address.

 

 

[Luke 42077]

8 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

Lets go back to basics.

The OP's VPN allocated an IP 172.58.x.x - this is a WAN address, thus should be considered Remote and Emby should apply the WAN based policy.

Emby however, classified this as LAN/Local - thus no WAN based policy was applied.

There is no 'it depends' - this is WAN IP, doesn't matter if it's a VPN or an ISP supplied IP - is is not an RFC1918 address.

 

 

We don't really have hard-coded behaviors for certain ranges other than specific private ip's because that's generally when we get in trouble as there's always some user who turns out to be an exception to the rule based on whatever their setup is.

That's why if it doesn't fall into the certain private ranges, then we go into the normal detection which compares the address to the local lan addresses that are either detected or configured via override.

[Luke 42077]

12 minutes ago, mbarylski said:

Luke, the IP I gave you doesn't fall into any of those ranges above. Nothing outside of those ranges should EVER be considered local. 

So, again, can you please fix it? 

Again - Did this topic shift gears into the opposite of what it was originally opened for? I thought the issue was you have a device on the local network that is being detected as a remote device.

[MBSki 1114]

2 minutes ago, Luke said:

Again - Did this topic shift gears into the opposite of what it was originally opened for? I thought the issue was you have a device on the local network that is being detected as a remote device.

For crying out loud Luke, just focus on the conversation and fix the issue. Is it still not clear to you that my IP is getting classified as local even though it is outside the ranges that Emby marks as local? Why are we still going round and round on this? Just fix the issue please.

[MBSki 1114]

5 minutes ago, Luke said:

That's why if it doesn't fall into the certain private ranges, then we go into the normal detection which compares the address to the local lan addresses that are either detected or configured via override.

And it isn't working, we already said that. Again, please fix.

[Happy2Play 9780]

Pretty much as the issue was discovered switching WIFI to Cellular, Cellular still showed as Local.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Happy2Play

[Luke 42077]

2 minutes ago, mbarylski said:

For crying out loud Luke, just focus on the conversation and fix the issue. Is it still not clear to you that my IP is getting classified as local even though it is outside the ranges that Emby marks as local? Why are we still going round and round on this? Just fix the issue please.

A yes or no would be helpful because every-time I come back into here I'm going to look at the title to refresh my memory on what we're talking about.

[MBSki 1114]

13 minutes ago, Luke said:

A yes or no would be helpful because every-time I come back into here I'm going to look at the title to refresh my memory on what we're talking about.

I changed the title to reflect the conversation. Now can you fix the issue?

[Luke 42077]

Thank you. Now I will need to have the server log all of the detected LAN ip's, and that should give us our answer.

[MBSki 1114]

10 minutes ago, Luke said:

Thank you. Now I will need to have the server log all of the detected LAN ip's, and that should give us our answer.

So just the server log?

[Guest]

...and all concerned IP's for Luke.. not posted here necessarily.. Just in case..

[pwhodges 2012]

(superceded...)

Edited April 10, 2021 by pwhodges

[Guest]

No I think in like 5 pages of post .. it actually is stated as the problem being had by the OP... I would say that's FINALLY been established... LOL

Though it is subjective to say that if in fact this is an issue and the opposite has occurred then in fact it may lend developers aid in tracking down the issue and does attest to the fact that it is in fact an issue when handling the 172. range..

Edited April 11, 2021 by Guest

[MBSki 1114]

@Luke I sent a PM with logs. Do you have what you need to fix the issue now?

[MBSki 1114]

@Luke Following up. I sent the logs. Have you diagnosed the issue, and are you able to fix now? 

[MBSki 1114]

@Luke It looks like 172.58.x.x is getting properly handled now in beta. Have you pushed the fixed to stable as well? 

[Carlo 4560]

15 minutes ago, mbarylski said:

@Luke It looks like 172.58.x.x is getting properly handled now in beta. Have you pushed the fixed to stable as well? 

That will normally happen when the latest Beta gets pushed as the new release version. So 4.6 release.

[MBSki 1114]

1 minute ago, cayars said:

That will normally happen when the latest Beta gets pushed as the new release version. So 4.6 release.

That's what I would've thought, but wanted to verify as stable appears to be handling 172.58.x.x. as well now. 

[MBSki 1114]

@Luke @cayars This isn't working any more in Windows beta or stable. It IS working on my WD EX2 Ultra NAS. What's going on? Should I send logs from all 3 servers?

[Carlo 4560]

That's a bit confusing.  Can you show/tell us how you are making this determination?
Are you sure it's not different network settings?

[MBSki 1114]

Just now, cayars said:

That's a bit confusing.  Can you show/tell us how you are making this determination?
Are you sure it's not different network settings?

Yea, I know it is. All servers are setup the same with 1 user set with "hide on remote connections". The 2 differences are windows vs NAS and port number. That's it.

[Carlo 4560]

Any chance we can do a remote session using AnyDesk and you can show me this 172.158.x.x. on both systems?
Shouldn't take more than 5 to 10 minutes.

[MBSki 1114]

Thanks for the help @cayars! 

So, we got it to work by filling in LAN networks and Local IP address. Really shouldn't have to do this though. @Luke can you take a look?

[Luke 42077]

On 4/17/2021 at 9:28 AM, mbarylski said:

Thanks for the help @cayars! 

So, we got it to work by filling in LAN networks and Local IP address. Really shouldn't have to do this though. @Luke can you take a look?

As a test, instead, try removing this hack. Then apply a max internet streaming bitrate value for the user. Doesn't matter what the number is, this is just for a quick test. 

Then perform the test with that user, sign in remotely and try to play something. Then please attach the emby server log. Thanks.