Print

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

[mlohbihler]

When setting up virtual server entries I get the message "port conflict with other public port", but i don't believe i should be.

I have two entries. The first maps 30080 to 192.168.0.102:80. The second maps 80 to 192.168.0.103:8080. This results in the error message, but i don't understand why since the public ports are different. Can anyone help?

[smlunatick]

Port 80 is usually reserved for HTML access to the router, especially when "Remote Management" is enabled.

[sflesch]

I get a similar error. It seems to occur when you try to route two different external ports to different internal ips with the same port. I don't think it has anything to do with "Remote Management."

I am trying to forward port 3389 to my server on 3389 and 3390 to another PC on 3389. They share port numbers, but on different PCs.

This seems to be a bug in the programming. I don't see a logical reason to be getting a port conflict in this case.

[mlohbihler]

Port 80 is usually reserved for HTML access to the router, especially when "Remote Management" is enabled.

No, it is not a problem with remote management, since individually the entries work fine. It's not until i try to enable both at the same time that the error appears. I've looked at the Javascript that raises the message and believe that it is incorrect. If D-Link is interested i can probably write a correct version of the code.

[Mark386]

I've looked at the Javascript that raises the message and believe that it is incorrect. If D-Link is interested i can probably write a correct version of the code.

Seriously. Ugh!

I have two machines that I want to run FTP servers on.

So I guess, I can put ONE of them as a Virtual server, and the other one I will have to use port forwarding on.

I can't have

21 -> 192.168.0.100:21
2100 -> 192.168.0.101:21

because of this bug.

So I'll have to accomplish the first one with port forwarding, which I guess is OK, but come on... Did anybody test that page before they released the firmware?  And where is the fix?

[FurryNutz]

Anyone try using QoS to set up ports on?
There wont be any new FW until the WPS vulnerability has bee addressed.

[eldhothomas]

I have the same issue. I bypassed it by changing the order of virtual servers. They have some weird looping going on there for the validation.

I have public 80 forwarded to private 80 on a server. When I added it to the bottom of the list, I get this error, but when I added it to the top of the list, it works. Ugghh !

[FurryNutz]

Link>Welcome!
What Hardware version is your router? Look at sticker under router.
Link>What Firmware version is currently loaded? Found on routers web page under status.
What region are you located?

So I presume this issue is not an problem and it's working for you.

I have the same issue. I bypassed it by changing the order of virtual servers. They have some weird looping going on there for the validation.

I have public 80 forwarded to private 80 on a server. When I added it to the bottom of the list, I get this error, but when I added it to the top of the list, it works. Ugghh !