Print

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

[pingram3541]

So far I cannot get port forwarding to work properly. =/

I use Vuze bittorrent client and have a rule built:
name: VuzeBT
IP Address: 192.168.0.11 (static assigned to pc with Vuze running)
Public port: 27XX1/27XX1 (same - single port)
Private port: 27XX1/greyed out - assigned automatically
Traffic Type: Any

When I test from my vuze client is shows NAT error - connection timed out with my public IP x.x.x.x:27XX1 for both TCP and UDP tests!

I have tried changing the port in my BT client and tried building equivalents in "Application Rules" and "Firewall Rules".  The rule is "checked" and shows up in the Firewall Rules (greyed out) as if automatically generated from the "Port Forwarding" page so I should expect it to work!  

Looking at other Dlink routers (http://forum.vuze.com/thread.jspa?threadID=78768) it looks like "Virtual Server" is used to make this happen but I do not have a virtual server option in my DIR-685.  Is this an oversight by DLINK?

My Port Forwarding rule is built identical to this, with exception of specifying a range instead of a single port but obviously my range is still just the single port anyway so why doesn't this work?  Did DLINK not properly test this before releasing the product to the public?



Looking at my Device Info under the Status page, at the bottom I see this:
UPNP SERVICE
Service Name   IP   Internal Port   External Port   Protocol
Azureus UPnP 27XX1 UDP   192.168.0.11   27XX1   27XX1   UDP
Azureus UPnP 27XX1 TCP   192.168.0.11   27XX1   27XX1   TCP

I also did a netstat -a at a command prompt and confirmed my pc is listening on both TCP and UDP ports 27XX1.

A second item that doesn't seem to be working is the WAN ping option, which is unchecked and should not respond to public ping requests to my public IP address however the router DOES respond to all ping requests. Shame. =/

Additionally, I had trouble setting up my dyndns.org(free) account where it would never connect.  But I figured it out, see update below.

**UPDATE: the dyndns function is now working.  You have to specify the WHOLE host name like "myhostname.dyndns.org" not just the "myhostname" part.

[FurryNutz]

Is the IP reservation set on the router or the PC?
What are your firewall settings set for?
Try setting firewall to Endpoint Independent for both TCP and UDP.

[pingram3541]

1) Is the IP reservation set on the router or the PC?
A)Yes, the pc ivp4 ip address is set manually via win7 network adapter properties (dhcp disabled)
- 192.168.0.11, Default gateway and DNS are 192.168.0.250 (dlink router - also tried both dynamic dns enabled and disabled even though this should effect forwarding this specific port)

2) What are your firewall settings set for?
A) DMZ disabled, SPI enabled - 2 rules carried over from port forwarding - as explained in first post.  That's all I have for firewall settings.  It does have ability to create rules which are very similar to the port forwarding page except you cannot specify both TCP and UDP, you can only specify either or ALL (all ports, not traffic type because the port range is grayed out when selecting ALL)
Name: Vuze TCP
Source: WAN (as opposed to LAN)
Source IP Range: * (any public ip address)
Protocol: TCP (as opposed to UDP, ICMP, or ALL)
Action: Allow (as opposed to Deny)
Port Range: 6881-6881
Destination: LAN (as opposed to WAN)
Destination IP Range: 192.168.0.11

*created identical rule for UDP

3) Try setting firewall to Endpoint Independent for both TCP and UDP.
A) Not sure what that means "endpoint independent" but taking a wild guess...it will not allow me to leave source and destination interfaces: WAN/LAN unspecified.  Also I have tried building a rule for TCP/UDP of port 6881 and I have tried breaking that into two separate TCP and UDP rules in my port forwarding area.  As mentioned in #2, the firewall area does not allow me to build a single rule for both TCP and UDP except for a generic "all" ports/types setting which seems to me would be the same thing as DMZ, except to a range of private IP's on the local network.  Very ODD these DLINKs...should be more straightforward one would think.


Ok, somethings up with this router.  I just set my pc 192.168.0.11 as the DMZ and am still failing the NAT test from within Vuze.  However, If I put my old Netgear router in it passes the NAT tests.  Going to GRC Shields Up and running a port scan of ports 1-1024 from the DMZ machine and windows firewall disabled all ports show up as stealth.  This router's firewall is very finicky, it allows my drop box, web browser and every online game I play but I can't get it to allow Vuze properly...and still oddly it responds to public ping requests even though it shouldn't.

Also, it looks like the MAC filtering doesn't work.  I set the option to enable MAC filtering and only allow devices in the list (25 entries only - also seems a bit limited) and DIDN'T place a check mark next to the MAC addresses to enable the rule (accidentally overlooked this) which should have locked me out but it didn't.  I then went back and selected each of the entries to "enable" them and it doesn't seem to matter, as long as the MAC address is in the list, whether the entry is enabled or not, it gets allowed.

[FurryNutz]

What ISP service do you have? DSL or Cable?
What ISP modem do you have? Stand alone or does it have a built in router by chance?

Setup Reserved (Static) IP addresses on the router for your devices.
Ensure devices are set up for Auto Obtain IP addressing.

Ensure DNS IP addresses are being filled in under Setup/Internet/Manual.
Ensure Advanced DNS Service is disabled if you have this option.
Ensure DNS Relay is enabled.

[pingram3541]

First, thanks for your continued help, it is greatly appreciated.

1) What ISP service do you have? DSL or Cable?
A) I have fiber with an Ethernet hand off

2) What ISP modem do you have? Stand alone or does it have a built in router by chance?
A) Fiber mux capable of routing but setup as bridge (when I remove DLINK router and connect just my 192.168.0.11 PC configured with my WAN's public IP the bit-torrent client has no NAT issues.  It's only once behind the DLINK it breaks.

3) Setup Reserved (Static) IP addresses on the router for your devices.
A) This only works when using DHCP and essentially forces an indefinite lease based on a devices MAC address, in which case I am only using DHCP for my WiFi devices anyway, my PC running the bit-torrent client is setup with a static IP address

4) Ensure devices are set up for Auto Obtain IP addressing.
A) Um, DHCP. So basically you are suggesting that this router only works of devices are using DHCP?  I suppose I could "test" that theory.

5) Ensure DNS IP addresses are being filled in under Setup/Internet/Manual.
A) Verified it on the DIR-685 (showing ISP DNS values) as well as both ways on my PC's static IP addressing, i.e. DNS as the router IP or actual DNS servers provided by ISP.

6) Ensure Advanced DNS Service is disabled if you have this option.
A) This has same result enabled/disabled.  Left disabled since Chrome browser already has anti-phishing and URL auto-correction.

7) Ensure DNS Relay is enabled.
A) Also tried this enabled/disabled and physically rebooted router after changes even though it doesn't appear to be necessary when I check my wireless DHCP clients, when enabled, they get the router IP address as the DNS, when disabled they get the actual ISP DNS entires.  Once again, this only effects DHCP machines.

Finally, most of the stuff you mentioned would only effect machines using DHCP.  As mentioned already I only use DHCP for wireless devices since my wired LAN machines (only 2) are where the router is located and it just makes it easier to set them up static in the case of router failure, as long as the physical layer is up, my workgroup networking is still in tact.

However, you pose a curious question of which I think I will test and post back.  I will try using DHCP reservation for my 192.168.0.11 machine and see if the rules are then applied.  This would be a huge bug...but I suppose not as huge as it seems right now where port forwarding/firewall rules and application triggers do not work...at all!

Thanks again.

[FurryNutz]

I have worked once with a fiber mux ehternet hand off set up. This begs the question, is the router getting a full public IP address on the WAN side or a private address of 192.168.#.#?

If the router isn't getting a pubic IP address from the fiber box, it's possible that this will introduce a DOUBLE NAT issue as this router is trying to translate something thru another router on the fiber box and thus you will see NAT connection issues.

I've noticed that setting up reserved IP addressing on the router help resolve some connection issue vs using Dymanic. I prefer reserved always for me. Just helps in troubleshooting, management and the IPs never change. Why it's the router, thats its job. 

[pingram3541]

Yep, public IP.  Remember, my other router works just fine when I plug it in and honestly, as far as a router, seems to be much better in regards to offerings and actual function of the settings.  It doesn't have the USB and NAS capabilities which is primarily why I picked up this DLink.  If DLink could just get these kinks worked out.

BTW, not trying to toot my own horn but this is what I do for a living.  I build networks for enterprise VoIP systems so I know my way around a few routers and then some.  However, these SOHO offerings don't always follow the same rules as the rest of the industry and that's why I'm here...trying to figure out if the issue is a quirky non-standard way to make something actually work vs the actual limitations of a bug.

i.e. port forwarding not working at all...or only working if using reserved IP assignment via DHCP???  Can't get much more "non-standard" than that!

***UPDATED***
Ok, so I just tried using the reserved IP addressing with DHCP setup and it still doesn't work.  NAT test still fails with timeout and GRC still shows all my ports as stealth.  So it looks like DLink still has some polishing to do.

And, as always, thanks for your input...2 heads is always better then 1 (well, most of the time anyway)  

[pingram3541]

Here's my next test.  I'm going to blow out everything and start from scratch with a factory reset.  Setup my basic WAN/LAN setup and the port forwarding.  I'll test some commons, like ftp, telnet and web server ports and see if any work.

[FurryNutz]

Understand man...nice to know that there are other people out there with some experience.

However you must understand that sometimes, that some of these routers, specially home routers may or maynot carry the same standards and may or may not have the same features and funtions as other standards. I feel that sometimes marketing nickles and dimes these things so depending on what they come up with and think home users needs are, might dictate what features work and don't work in some of these router. Ya, you'd think for $300 bucks this thing would to it all. Any maybe it does for what they designed and marketed it for. I don't know. I think most routers work well, it's when marketing gets involved, it's possible that some standards seen elsewhere are not carried over here. My 2 cents.

[pingram3541]

Yeah, I think it's about time I get on the phone with TS because this router has issues.  Who knows, maybe I got a bad unit???

Here is what I found so far.  Factory reset and tested several things, not trying to bash the product but just wanting to point out my experience thus far.

1) Port forwarding does not work, period.  Tried with http port 80 and ftp port 21.  With PC in front of router I could connect to both but with PC behind router, whether assigned a static IP or using reserved DHCP and even DMZ could not get past the router.  A port scan on GRC shows stealth.  I tried port forwarding, application rules (even using built in http and ftp rules) and the firewall rules - each individually and also with all of them built - nothing gets past this thing - at least connections initiated from the outside.

2) MAC address filtering also doesn't work properly.  I was able to connect even though router was set to only allow devices in the list from devices not in the list.  Additionally there is no way to put a name to each entry so you have no clue which MAC belongs to which device, very poorly thought out.

3) Responds to ping requests on public WAN side even though is set to disabled in admin.  (hey, half the battle is won if hackers don't know I'm here! This should be a priority bug fix!)

4) Disabling advanced dns and dns relay breaks dns function altogether, even when I manually enter my ISP's dns servers.  I even tried googles public dns servers as well as manually entering the the DLink dns servers (provided when the feature is enabled) and name resolution still wouldn't work properly.  And, yes I released and renewed my DHCP each time.

I haven't even messed with the storage settings on this thing - oddly the only reason I bought it.  For now, the old router goes back in until DLink does some more polishing or TS strongly implies this is an out of box lemon and RMA's me a new one.

[FurryNutz]

Ya I would and see if you can do a RMA on it. Make sure you put in a letter if you do RMA it one what the issues your seeing. I Hope they will fix it. Keep us posted on what you find out.

[pingram3541]

Contacted DLink support and was surprised how quickly they told me to contact the original point of sale for a return and replacement.  They didn't ask me to troubleshoot a single thing.

Of course opening the conversation I was very polite and calmly told them that I had exhausted all efforts troubleshooting via the forums, factory resets, latest firmware etc. so I suppose they just took my word for it and didn't think it necessary to troubleshoot for themselves.  Hmmm, I sure hope this is a defective unit because if it's not, I really am starting to wonder if I'm going to get the product I paid for.

[FurryNutz]

Are you able to return the unit to PoS and get your money back or is that beyond limits?
I would RMA if it's beyond return limits.
Keep us posted.

[pingram3541]

Dlink support asked me to email them links to all the threads I had posted issues and called me back yesterday stating they attempted to reproduce all the issues I had and could not duplicate any of them so it does not look like firmware/bug issues but rather a faulty unit.

Yay!  I am now processing an RMA with them for a new unit.

[FurryNutz]

Ok, keep us posted. When you get the new unit, lets go thru and get it set and and see if I can help out with that.