How to treat ip in 172.24.0.0/18 as public network

[maplefeng 3]

I set 192.168.1.0/24 as LAN in Emby. However, the remote connection from 172.24.X.X (VPN) to my server was still considered as private network ip, and video / music transcoding did not work. How can I set 172.24.0.0/18 as a public ip range in emby. Thanks.

[Abobader 3464]

Hello maplefeng,

** This is an auto reply **

Please wait for someone from staff support or our members to reply to you.

It's recommended to provide more info, as it explain in this thread:

Thank you.

Emby Team

[rbjtech 5284]

172.24.x.x IS an RFC 1918 private address range. (172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255)

However, according to my interpretation of the emby text below - if you set your LAN address or subnet in here - everything else is considered external.

So if your emby server is IP 192.168.1.10 - then by entering 192.168.1.0/24 - everything directly connected to the same network SHOULD be considered local, everything else will be considered remote.

We probably need @Luke or @ebr to confirm here.

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by rbjtech

[maplefeng 3]

4 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

172.24.x.x IS an RFC 1918 private address range. (172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255)

However, according to my interpretation of the emby text below - if you set your LAN address or subnet in here - everything else is considered external.

So if your emby server is IP 192.168.1.10 - then by entering 192.168.1.0/24 - everything directly connected to the same network SHOULD be considered local, everything else will be considered remote.

We probably need @Luke or @ebr to confirm here.

 

Hi. I did entered 192.168.1.0/24 in the LAN networks. But 172.24.x.x is still considered as a local ip address. As a consequence, my account is shown directly in the login page, and music transcode for flac did not work. Strange isn't it

[rbjtech 5284]

It sounds like only the last sentence is correct - I run multi-vlan's but in the RFC 1918 space (and leave the field blank) - and they are all considered local.  So it may be ignoring your entry or our interpretation is wrong.

Edited March 29, 2021 by rbjtech

[maplefeng 3]

7 hours ago, rbjtech said:

It sounds like only the last sentence is correct - I run multi-vlan's but in the RFC 1918 space (and leave the field blank) - and they are all considered local.  So it may be ignoring your entry or our interpretation is wrong.

I've tested a few other IP. When the LAN Network was set to 192.168.1.0/24, 192.168.2.X and 10.0.0.X was recognized as public IP, but  172.24.x.x and 172.20.x.x was recognized as private IP. That's strange.

Edited March 30, 2021 by maplefeng

[Happy2Play 9780]

@LukeIf range is set via LAN networks is set, should other private IP subnets still considered as local as reported here?

[Carlo 4561]

I would think NOT because you might have a local proxy but want those users being remote.
Another common example of private address but actually remote would be VPN users (you run a private VPN server).

[maplefeng 3]

3 minutes ago, cayars said:

I would think NOT because you might have a local proxy but want those users being remote.
Another common example of private address but actually remote would be VPN users (you run a private VPN server).

I've tested a few other IP. When the LAN Network was set to 192.168.1.0/24, 192.168.2.X and 10.0.0.X was recognized as public IP, but  172.24.x.x and 172.20.x.x was recognized as private IP. That's strange.

[Happy2Play 9780]

So the issue is with this specific 172.x.x.x network not following the set range rule.  192.x.x.x and 10.x.x.x are honoring the range rule. 

[maplefeng 3]

9 minutes ago, Happy2Play said:

So the issue is with this specific 172.x.x.x network not following the set range rule.  192.x.x.x and 10.x.x.x are honoring the range rule. 

Yes. 

[maplefeng 3]

What can I do for this

[Carlo 4561]

We need to wait until @Luke has had a chance to look at it.

I think the only thing you could do if possible is switch the IPs used to one of the other reserved IP blocks.

[Guest]

That might explain something on mine.. I do have some little annoyances that could be related but it seemed o perform better without putting mine in..

I do something stupid though because of 'other' issues here at home.. he cable modem uses 192.168 addresses.. has no special settings.. its own wifi.. someone else uses it..I used to have it bridged and protected.

To protect my WiFi Network Channels ( 1 with a possible of 8 ) : (  -I already know I have other capabilities/option here but this is the scenario ) .. my R8000 is not set as an access point.. but is using one IP from the cable modem.. Then all of my devices connect to the R8000 using 172's..

[Luke 42078]

There is currently no way to do this as this is considered private address space as mentioned by the user above.

So we would have to look at changing that, which obviously could be a painful change that may result in some troubleshooting for us.

[Carlo 4561]

But it seems the 172 address space is handled differently than 192 and 10 address spaces based on what's been said above.
I think he just needs 172 space to work the same as 192 and 10.

[maplefeng 3]

25 minutes ago, Luke said:

There is currently no way to do this as this is considered private address space as mentioned by the user above.

So we would have to look at changing that, which obviously could be a painful change that may result in some troubleshooting for us.

Only  172 space is not working properly. Hope that could be fixed.

[Happy2Play 9780]

33 minutes ago, Luke said:

There is currently no way to do this as this is considered private address space as mentioned by the user above.

So we would have to look at changing that, which obviously could be a painful change that may result in some troubleshooting for us.

So the note under that setting does not apply to all private IP space?  

[Luke 42078]

The help text says common IP private subnets, which 172.16.X to 17.31.X are.

[Happy2Play 9780]

5 minutes ago, Luke said:

The help text says common IP private subnets, which 172.16.X to 17.31.X are.

So applying 192.168.1.0/24 should only make that network private and treat all other network as public, correct?

It does for the reset of the 192 network and the 10 network but not the 172 network.  If not what is the purpose of this field?  I would appear to only be partially working.

[Luke 42078]

I think the help text is pretty clear that commonly known private subnets are going to be treated as inside the network no matter how you configure the field. So for example, the 172 addresses I mentioned above as well as anything starting with 192.168.

I'm not saying that it can't be changed, but that's how it is today and the help text says that.

[Happy2Play 9780]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

I think the help text is pretty clear that commonly known private subnets are going to be treated as inside the network no matter how you configure the field. So for example, the 172 addresses I mentioned above as well as anything starting with 192.168.

I'm not saying that it can't be changed, but that's how it is today and the help text says that.

But the rules are not being followed as the field is not Blank.  This networks range ignored set range access.  So if I set only 192 network, 10 and 172 are no longer private if the note rules apply.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Happy2Play

[maplefeng 3]

2 minutes ago, Luke said:

I think the help text is pretty clear that commonly known private subnets are going to be treated as inside the network no matter how you configure the field. So for example, the 172 addresses I mentioned above as well as anything starting with 192.168.

I'm not saying that it can't be changed, but that's how it is today and the help text says that.

According to my test, when I applied 192.168.1.0/24 in the field, 192.168.5.X and 10.0.0.X was both treated as outside the network, while 172 addresses were treated as inside network.

[Guest]

What was your detected local at that time as shown by Emby.

[maplefeng 3]

11 minutes ago, Hxemby001 said:

What was your detected local at that time as shown by Emby.

I did checked the log. The IP in the log is exactly an 172 addresses