Unfortunately this assumes I’m initiating a pppoe connection on my peplink, which sadly is not my scenario. The WAN1 gateway is initiating a pppoe connection on a ONT (Optical Network Terminal) which was configured by the ISP and sadly I was not able to mimic on the peplink (when I tried it, I got “no pppoe service detected” on the Peplink). On the Peplink I have a Static IP configured, set with primary IP address a LAN address which is being NAT-ted trough the gateway, which is currently taking the public address on its ppp interface. The public IP address is then configured as additional public IP address in the Peplink. This seems exotic, but kind of works since on the WAN1 gateway a data link bridge is configured so everything coming from ppp will sink in the eth0 interface of the gateway and arrive to the Peplink. This is suboptimal as the primary IP address of the Peplink is not a public ip address, outbound packets are being NAT-ed and and I’m seeing compatibility problems. As said previously, I can disable NAT and I can tell the ppp interface to not take the public IP address and so I can have Peplink reserve it: the missing link would then have a way to tell Peplink with a Static IP WAN configuration how to reach a gateway which is not in the same network, which is the main question asked here. “Management IP address” would work but it’s only available for the pppoe configurations. What would help here could be:
- the ability to add arbitrary additional IP addresses in the Peplink WAN interface when using Static IP configuration, not limiting it to public /32 addresses;
- the ability to add a static route that will tell Peplink how to reach the a single IP address on the specific WAN interface;
- I could add VLAN interface with IP address in the same LAN network of the WAN gateway, assign it to a LAN port in the Peplink and connect a second link to the WAN gateway. It seems exotic and dirty. I didn’t try it but it could work…
- Any other suggestion it come up in your mind that may help here.
Honestly, I would expect Peplink to support either 1) and/or 2), since they would be the cleaner solution and especially 1) would be very easy to implement on Peplink side, as it’s partially already implemented for pppoe connections, as you just suggested to me.