Caveat emptor: avoid Inseego 5G products unless you still believe in classful routing

Tue Mar 28 19:43:16 UTC 2023

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 2:25 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com>
wrote:

>
> In the category of "I can't believe I still have to worry about this in
> 2023"
> comes an unfortunate discovery I made recently when setting up a network
> for a local non-profit.  The Inseego FX2000 5G router looked like a nice
> product, it supports OpenVPN out of the box, flexible firewall rules, etc.
>
> What I did *NOT* expect from a device made in 2023, and didn't think to
> ask about ahead of time, is whether it supported classless routing.
>
> Setting the unit up, I discovered the hard way that the developers are
> apparently still working from 1989 textbooks.  The only netmask the
> router will accept for a 10.x.x.x. subnet is 255.0.0.0.  Absolutely
> refuses
> to accept a different length netmask.
>
> Even the user manual reflects the inherent classful assumption:
>
> "
> IPv4
> IP Address: The IP address for your FX2000, as seen from the local
> network. Normally, you can use the default value.
> Subnet Mask: The subnet mask network setting for the FX2000. The default
> value 255.255.255.0 is standard for small (class "C") networks. If you
> change the LAN IP Address, make sure to use the correct Subnet mask for the
> IP address range of the LAN IP address
> "
>
> So, before anyone else makes the same mistake I did, I thought I'd give
> the
> community a heads-up to avoid the Inseego line of 5G products, as they're
> woefully behind the times in their understanding of IPv4 subnetting as it
> exists in 2023.  ^_^;
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>

But how is their IPv6 support? ;)

Matt Harris
VP OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Follow us on LinkedIn!
matt.harris at netfire.net
816-256-5446
www.netfire.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230328/39e92c7b/attachment.html>