Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BostonBill]

UPDATED AND REVISED 2010.12.05-17:00 GMT

I have been running a DIR 655 Router with Hardware Version A1/A2 (current firmware: 1.34NA) with very good results for three years now. This router provides loopback support (in the current and all previous firmware versions I have used). This means that I can access the virtual websites hosted on my Apache web server from other computers on the LAN side of my router using their WAN side domain names (or IP addresses).

I recently purchased and installed a second DIR 655 Router with Hardware Version B1 (installed firmware: 2.00NA).

I quickly discovered, when testing a second Apache web server that was connected to this new router, that this version of the DIR-655 no longer provides loopback support.

(Just to be absolutely sure I wasn't missing something, I swapped my servers-- putting the server that had been on the A1/A2 router on the B1 router and vice versa: this test confirmed that the problem was directly caused by whether I was using the A1/A2 or B1 hardware version of the DIR-655.)

I would certainly appreciate seeing a firmware upgrade to the B1 hardware which would give it the same loopback functionality which I enjoy on my A1/A2 router. In the meantime, if anyone knows of a currently produced DLINK (or other make) router that provides proven loopback support, I would be very grateful for the recommendation. Thanks very much.

[BostonBill]

Note: When I originally made the post above, I didn't know that the term that described the functionality that was missing from my DIR 655 Version B router was "loopback" support. Since then I have searched this (and other) boards using this specific term and have found various suggestions for fixing the lack of loopback support on my router.

I have tried each of the following changes (which were suggested in these various comments) and none of them has solved the problem with my Version B router:

(1) Programmed all port forwarding (notable 80 LAN to 80 WAN) under Advanced / Virtual Server rather than under Advanced / Port Forwarding
(2) Under Advanced / Firewall settings, I (a) unchecked SPI, (b) selected the two options for "Endpoint Independent" under "NAT Endpoint Filtering" and (c) disabled anti-spoof checking.

At least one commentator suggested that D-Link was moving to eliminate loopback support because of "security" concerns. I am extremely curious if this is accurate, and if so, what those concerns are. Meanwhile I discovered an ancient and primitive D-Link EBR-2310 router which had been languishing in a spare parts box. Happily this simple device provides loopback support so my "problem" is fixed for the moment, although I would still like to figure out if there is a way to have loopback support on my Version B router since I'm stuck with it now and I spent some $80 to buy it...

[BostonBill]

I confess that I am a bit intrigued that no one at this discussion board posted any insights regarding D-LINK's policy toward providing NAT Loopback support on the DIR-655 (or its other routers). In any event, some additional research indicated that one sure fire way to insure that your router has NAT Loopback support is to buy a router that can run the DD-WRT operating system. Some D-Links, such as the DIR-615, can-- in some hardware versions-- use the DD-WRT operating system instead of the native D-Link system. But since it's very hard to know what hardware version  you're buying (and since the DIR-655 definitely does not qualify), I bought and tested an Asus RT-N12, a router that was specifically advertised as being DD-WRT compatible. I flashed the DD-WRT operating system onto the Asus router with absolutely no problems by doing a firmware upgrade. DD-WRT's system offers a lot of flexibility (although, to my taste, their user interface is not quite as friendly as D-Link's). Not only did DD-WRT provide NAT Loopback support, but the router has a dedicated switch (on the Security / Firewall tab) labeled "Filter WAN NAT Redirection" which allows the user the ability to explcitly turn NAT Loopback support on and off at will.

[DaveB]

FWIW, I agree with your concern.  This feature (loopback) is something I consider essential to using this router and I am unable to make it work even when turning off SPI, etc. as recommended in various posts (and tried by the original poster).

I have the need for several routers and bought a DIR-655 based on the solid specs but until this feature is reinstated I really can't see getting another and have put the one I bought back in its box.

So .  .  . D-Link support PLEASE pass on a request for this feature to your development team.  Make it optional, certainly, but give the user the option to turn on loopback.

[kthaddock]

Why ? I don't See any reason to enable looback. You can reach you server inside LAN with 192.168...
What application do you use who need loopback ? All NAT you are doing consuming allot of CPU power.
Most CPU load consumption comming from NAT-translation.
BTW loopback in DD-WRT are not in build anymore !

[DaveB]

Okay.  There are several scenarios where I use this -- and I certainly understand that most people won't have this need, but that's exactly why I can see why this would be an optional, enabled/disabled feature -- but here is one:

I move around with a wifi enabled notebook computer between locations where various servers are located behind wireless/wired routers and the ISP provides a dynamic IP address.  In my current configuration (where I have routers which allow loopback), I am able to store links such as someserver.dyndns.org:1234 (where each router updates a dynamic ip address via DynDNS and the specific port routes through to a specific machine and service) and whether or not I am inside or outside a particular network the same link will always work.

Without loopback, when I am inside a particular local network, I must use a specific IP address based link since any DynDNS based links that route to that local network will fail.  So in this situation there is the need for one link for each server for use when I am outside that particular network and another link for when I am inside.  Not insurmountable, certainly, but not the way I would prefer to work.

The other scenarios are different in details but similar in general.

[pleblo]

I also would love to know why this was taken out of the later version's of this router.  I have a B1 also and can't stand that this was taken out.   I use this for the same exact way as the above user.  If anyone finds a way around this please share.

[njellis]

Bummer... just tried to upgrade my older (but extremely reliable work-horse) Netgear WGR-614 router to move into Wireless-N and Gigabit network... but this is an absolute must have.

I have just spent the last 2 hours configuring my IP reservations, Ports etc -- and then tried to view one of my websites (which is hosted on the internet, but pulls information from servers inside my network)-- and fail.

**Sigh** 2 hours gone. Guess I'll be returning my DIR-655.

[marmoduke]

I am not trying to make light of your situation, however, if I were you I would be more concerned that the B series, as discovered on this board, has yet to "PASS" the firewall and router security tests that the A series has no trouble with.  When the B series came out, there were numerous reports of failure to pass security tests.  As far as I know, that is still true as nobody has announced to the contrary.

I refer you to Gibson Research Test Page (just one of many) where you can test the overall security of your router(s).  There are several tests on this site.  I suggest you run and evaluate all of them.

https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

[FurryNutz]

Just tried that using Service ALL Ports and it failed however only for Solicited TCP Packets: RECEIVED (FAILED) and only the 1st 2 blocks were Clossed, all theres were Stealth green. Using FW v2.00.

0   
<nil>   
Closed   Your computer has responded that this port exists but is currently closed to connections.

BTW, v2.03 FW is PASSING Gibsons scan.

[defdac]

I got my loopback to work with hardware version B1 and firmware version 2.00 by using a Virtual Server for ssh on public port 22 - and here's the catch: private port 1081 (or other than 22).

Caveat: This meant I had to change the listening port for my SSH-server from the default 22 to 1081 instead (which is really easy to do).

I wrote a blog post about it, with background info on why I need this feature:
http://www.defblog.se/permalink/2141.html

[FurryNutz]

Good info for those wanting Loopback. 
http://www.tech-faq.com/127-0-0-1.html