I am getting lost in routers and need some of the expert help so ably demonstrated here (is that creeping enough?)..

I have a server on my home network that I can happily access through http://192.168.0.17:12078/tags and similar queries. I would like to be able to access it from further afield through my router. I can set up port forwarding from my WAN IP address port 7777(say) to 192.168.0.17 but I don't know how to forward it to port 12078 in particular. Can anyone give me some pointers if this is possible? Hopefully, I have made sense so far!? (I did optimistically try http://myrouterip:7777:12078/tags but, not surprisingly, no joy)

My router is a Netgear DG824M if that makes any difference?

Any pointers you can give gratefully received...

Thanks

Nick

From a quick glance at the pdf manual, it doesn't appear that the DG824 allows you to redirect to a different port number.

Why don't you just forward myrouterip:12078 to 192.158.0.17:12078 ?

Is there some particular reason you need to have 7777 forwarded to 12078, and can't just access router:12078 to forward to server:12078? My router (Linksys) can only do router:x -> server:x , not router:x -> server:y. I've personally never seen a router (in the "home user" category, anyway) that has that kind of flexibility.

If all else fails, you could have router:7777 forward to an Apache web server on server:7777, and use Apache's mod_proxy to "reverse proxy" to the other server on server:12078.

SMC's "home" routers can do router:x -> server:y... at least the 7004VWBR can, presumably all their modern products will too.

Why don't you just forward myrouterip:12078 to 192.158.0.17:12078 ?

Ah! Thanks!

It was my lack of knowledge! It occurred to me just as you must have been writing it, that I had misunderstood port forwarding. 7777 was just my random choice of port. I thought I was mapping myrouterip:7777 to 192.168.0.17 with no ports, and then had to map to port 12078 afterwards. Makes sense now! I have forwarded myrouteip:12078 to 192.168.0.17 and it seems to work fine now. I can access the server via my external IP address now as well! Music wherever I am!!

Cheers for the help!

Nick

Actually - now I understand this bit of port forwarding, it raises another question in my mind.

If I have 2 units in my network using port 12078, I can address them with, say, 192.168.0.17:12078 and 192.168.0.18:12078. But from an external source if I forward myrouterip:12078 to 192.168.0.17:12078 is there any way I can also access 192.168.0.18:12078 externally?

Nick

Not via port 12078, no.

P.S. that isn't quite true, you could use a load balancing router/switch to share the incoming traffic to port 12078 between 192.168.0.17 and 192.168.0.18, but I don't think that is what you were asking for.

not with your current router hardware, no. there are plenty of products that will do this, though. they range from free (if you're willing to devote an old PC to the project), on upwards in price.

for home use, many will advocate a particular {linux,openbsd,etc} distribution that is geared toward routing and firewalling. i am partial to a free version of a commercial firewall, gnatbox light. it works very well, is ICSA certified, and has an upgrade path to their commercial line if/when necessary. i have it running on an old pentium pro 200, and it works like a champ.

--dan.

Not simply. You could probably do a port redirection on one of the internal servers to achieve the same aim though, assuming you're running a credible server OS or WinXP;

On router:
routerip:12078 -> 192.168.0.17
routerip:12079 -> 192.168.0.18

On 192.168.0.18:
192.168.0.18:12079 -> 192.168.0.18:12078

Tony, what model of Linksys router do you have? I have a Linksys BEFW11S4 (2 years old now) and it can translate ports from one external port to a different internal port. I also have a little mini 4-port router from NetworkEverywhere (division of Linksys) that can do the same. I assumed the entire line of Linksys routers had the same configuration capability. I guess that maybe isn't the case. - trs

Thanks for the posts - I think I get the general gist, but I don't think it is quite what I am after...

The server I was talking about was just a music server for Rio Receiver/streaming rather than another PC. The firewall/NAT is the one in the router.

The multiple port question was more along these lines - my router forwards the ports that Messenger uses to my main PC's IP address, so Messenger works fine from there through the firewall. However, if I want to use Messenger fully on my webpad, the ports are now forwarded to the wrong PC. Without changing the port forwarding everytime, is there any way I can redirect to the same PC that the original request came from?

The network is the Netgear DG824M wired direct to the main PC running XP Home, and wirelessly to the Webpad running 98SE.

Am I missing something else (very likely )

Cheers

Nick

Sounds like you need a router than has specific support in it's NAT code to fully support using Messenger on two different machines behind the router. The router would then analyse incoming Messenger traffic and make sure it gets to the right client machine.

Ditto for my Buffalo APs. But then again, it's actually just a very stripped down Linux install with iptables so it's just whether they put an interface in.

If you've got a router that supports UPnP, then Messenger will negotiate a forwarded port automatically. I've not tried it with two PCs, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

Aha! I've enabled uPnP now (it was defaulted off), so I will have to try it from both PCs and see if it will work - thanks!

Is it me, or does uPnP slow down Internet Explorer? It seems to take longer to fire up a page with uPnP on... Messenger seems to check for my e-mails just as quick though!

Nick

Is it me, or does uPnP slow down Internet Explorer?

Shouldn't do. I wonder if it uses UPnP to find a web cache. What have you got configured under Tools / Internet Options / Connections / LAN Settings?

What have you got configured under Tools / Internet Options / Connections / LAN Settings?

Nothing is ticked in that box at all, including "automatically detect.....". Should it be?

To clarify my comment, now I have played it for a bit, it seems to wait a bit before it puts a page up, but puts it all up in one go - overall time may be no more, it just seemed it when the initial pause is longer...

It does seem to have sorted out messenger though Haven't tried it fully though yet... Thanks for the help on that bit. I seem to have drifted slightly from my original aim!

Nick

Nothing is ticked in that box at all, including "automatically detect.....". Should it be?

I've got nothing checked in there at all, and I've not noticed any slowdown, so it's probably OK.

It's probably in my head (it was pretty marginal anyway)! Thanks for the help...

Nick