curl 192.168.4.20:8089
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1, user-scalable=no">
<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/apple-touch-icon.png">
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="/favicon-32x32.png" sizes="32x32">
<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="/favicon-16x16.png" sizes="16x16">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/bundle.css">
<link rel="manifest" href="/manifest.json">
<meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes">
<title>Channels</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id="content"></div>
<div id="modal-wrapper"></div>
<div id="modal"></div>
<script async type="text/javascript" src="https://www.gstatic.com/cv/js/sender/v1/cast_sender.js?loadCastFramework=1"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/bundle.js"></script>
<script>
if ('serviceWorker' in navigator) {
navigator.serviceWorker.register('/service-worker.js').then(function(registration) {
console.log('Service worker registration succeeded:', registration)
}, function(error) {
console.log('Service worker registration failed:', error)
})
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
OK, so let's see if we get any additional information this way:
In Portainer, use the Quick Action buttons for the OliveTin container to "exec" into it. Then execute the same curl command you used in Windows:
It just appears to hang. Nothing shows up on the terminal at all.
I eventually got a "Failed to connect to 192.168.4.20 port 8089: Connection timed out"
Must have been a couple of minutes before it timed out though.
Can you ping the IP like so:
root@olivetin:/# ping 192.168.110.57
PING 192.168.110.57 (192.168.110.57) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.110.57: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.023 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.110.57: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.031 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.110.57: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.031 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.110.57: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.036 ms
^C
--- 192.168.110.57 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.023/0.030/0.036/0.004 ms
root@olivetin:/#
Ctrl-C to break
An couple more things I'd like you to try, in addition to the above items, while exec'ing into the OliveTin console:
curl 172.17.0.1:8089
and
curl 172.17.0.1:9000
Hopefully, at some point, we can figure out what's going on with your setup as far as docker containers being able to access IPs on your LAN. This is something unique to the way your Synology NAS, or your router, are configured.
In the meantime, we can use Docker's internal gateway, since Channels DVR and Docker are on the same machine. So configure these OliveTin environment variables like so:
CHANNELS_DVR_HOST=172.17.0.1
PORTAINER_HOST=172.17.0.1
Everything else can stay as you have it now. If you could confirm back that the OliveTin Post-Install Healthcheck looks good, and also post the final environment variables you're using -- in case someone else finds themselves in this unusual scenario in the future.
Awesome! That seems to have worked. Thank you so much for being so helpful and patient with me. I was even able to run Project One-Click and create the Pluto stack and channels. So what is the drawback to leaving the IP addresses as those internal docker ones instead of the actual IP of the NAS?
My next goal is going to be to get the EPlus channels to work, which is why I started on this whole process in the first place.
I don't think there's much as far as OliveTin is concerned. You probably won't be able to send onscreen message to your Channels clients -- but that's about the only one that comes to mind. You're the only one doing it this way, as far as I know, so it's possible we'll run into something.
Any docker extension that asks you for the ip or ip:port of your Channels DVR would likely need to use that Docker gateway.
As a bonus 
, I thought I'd show you what it looks like when you setup these various WebUIs through Organizr (which is in Project One-Click):
Everything is in a single browser tab, and you can switch between the WebUIs using the icons down the left side.
What do your Synology Network Interfaces look like
Also, Synology Container Manager gives you a better view of what containers are using which docker networks.
In case you're wondering where I'm going with this, I noticed your bridge network is missing the default gateway 172.17.0.1. What containers are using that bridge network?
That is interesting -- though the bridge gateway is working both on the @dea321 system, and on my DSM VM (which is also missing that gateway address). We're both using it in lieu of the Synology LAN IP address (which doesn't work for him, but does for me). I just checked a few of my other Docker installations, and they all show the gateway address.
It's a thread worth pulling on. Should we get some details on his version of DSM and the box he's running it on?
That plus the version of docker he's using.
# docker version
Client:
Version: 20.10.23
API version: 1.41
Go version: go1.19.1
Git commit: 876964a
Built: Fri Sep 8 08:19:48 2023
OS/Arch: linux/amd64
Context: default
Experimental: true
Server:
Engine:
Version: 20.10.23
API version: 1.41 (minimum version 1.12)
Go version: go1.19.1
Git commit: 5fcb1cf
Built: Fri Sep 8 08:18:18 2023
OS/Arch: linux/amd64
Experimental: false
containerd:
Version: v1.6.15
GitCommit: b23a389d8c181697302d163356e97dec04eb8d88
runc:
Version: v1.1.4
GitCommit: 5af893d
docker-init:
Version: 0.19.0
GitCommit: ed96d00
Wondering what containers are using that.
Possibly caused by using Portainer and misconfiguring something?
So, I just checked mine in my freshly installed DSM 7.2, and Docker is at 20.10.23 which is more than a year old. Is that typical with Synology? My Debian installations are at 26.x I believe.
Just OliveTin according to his screenshot.
Does your Portainer installation show the gateway address. And what version of DSM and Portainer are you running?
I'm running DSM 7.2.1-69057 Update 5
Portainer CE v2.19.5
# docker network inspect bridge
[
{
"Name": "bridge",
"Id": "dd8839056f6f27c117947e293a568ef52d3af6a2a4df696287c760940f2fce2a",
"Created": "2024-04-23T18:12:42.177342936-07:00",
"Scope": "local",
"Driver": "bridge",
"EnableIPv6": false,
"IPAM": {
"Driver": "default",
"Options": null,
"Config": [
{
"Subnet": "172.17.0.0/16",
"Gateway": "172.17.0.1"
}
]
},
"Internal": false,
"Attachable": false,
"Ingress": false,
"ConfigFrom": {
"Network": ""
},
"ConfigOnly": false,
"Containers": {
"9fc8eaa642bf29fc8a11964f8e9a51dba52b9f4f91a8937b1cbe0d285844d8af": {
"Name": "portainer",
"EndpointID": "e378fa15dc6964dae53e8f95ff17c8f30256c666595272dda71c33a99d234f57",
"MacAddress": "02:42:ac:11:00:02",
"IPv4Address": "172.17.0.2/16",
"IPv6Address": ""
}
},
"Options": {
"com.docker.network.bridge.default_bridge": "true",
"com.docker.network.bridge.enable_icc": "true",
"com.docker.network.bridge.enable_ip_masquerade": "true",
"com.docker.network.bridge.host_binding_ipv4": "0.0.0.0",
"com.docker.network.bridge.name": "docker0",
"com.docker.network.driver.mtu": "1500"
},
"Labels": {}
}
]
I'm using DSM 7.2.1-69057 Update 3 and Docker ver 20.10.23-1437. I wonder if I should update my DSM?
Edited to add: also Portainer CE 2.19.5
Edited again: It's a DS218+ box
