RV320 Bug - Service Management Table (Port Forwarding)

I'm unable to add more than 16 entries for port forwarding.
It's a RV320 on v1.1.1.06 (newest to date) and it doesn't accept more than 16 entries in the "Service Management Table" required for port forwarding. As soon as I try to enter number 17 and hit save the window closes like it always does but you can see for a short time it says "Critical failure. Please contact support." Everything else works, except for the entry in the Service Management Table. I'm also unable to use it in the port forwarding section, it just doesn't save the entry. I'm unable to add any services to the list unless I delete others but it only works again until number 16.
Actually the "limit" is 37 because it comes with 21 services entered out of the box.
I couldn't find any bug reporting website that I could use without a contract. So I seek for help here.
Anybody else having this issue or is it just my device?

10 days ago a post was made in https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12353771/cannot-manage-service-list-all-waited-unacceptably-long-fix indicating there is a new firmware in beta test, I've contacted support to try to get a copy.
I'm moving off Draytek, have a 2830 with latest firmware and various weird issues that they've confirmed are bugs but cannot provide a due date for fix. DHCP randomly giving out wrong DNS server addresses, tagged VLAN support flaky and giving out DHCP details from wrong VLAN (worked around using 1 cable from switch per VLAN and using port based VLAN rather than tagged), App Enforcement for IM blocking causing SMTP and Live.com login issues. And that's just what cropped up last week with the unit at work here. Still using it for our live router as we can't put the RV320 in place until we can configure all the required ACLs which needs more than 16 service entries.

Similar Messages

RV320 custom services management buggy

I've encountered several bugs and quirks, when trying to add custom services, and use them for firewall rules and port forwarding.
Including:
Deleting a custom service, does not (always) delete the one checked
Deleting a custom service, adding a custom service from port forward page, sometimes adds an "any service" rule
A deleted custom service, suddenly re-appears when adding port forward, even though verified deleted in Service Management
Duplicate services exist in combobox when adding port forward, though no duplicates are present under Service Management
I'm on firmware v1.1.0.09.
Are you aware of this Cisco? Is there a firmware fix scheduled?

Same Issue for me too.
I don't believe that Cisco had mess so much with these RV32x series....
Not only the "service Management" problems but i got other compatibility problems with VoIP providers.
It seem's that the NAT refresh time got some lake situation too, and unfortunately there is no option into the interface to change is value.
Give only few manual entries of service managment ports reduce this product into a residential usage, even this i meet these limitation with some residentials users with NAS that provide many services and absolutely need to open more than 30 ports.
Upnp can force to ad some entry, but in fact this can start another problem of overload the list in port forwarding
Cisco, can you read this, this is not an entry level of router we are talking here, and we can't effort to fall on basic services non work situation, please react fastest as you can to provide a thru fix on all these problems or we will need to completly forget Cisco Small Businness products routers.

Does Port Forwarding Differ in AEXn from other routers?

After having many issues with using FTP in my current router, I have discovered that there is simply something wrong with the way the AEXn port forwards to my FTP server. It appears to forward such that my server cannot read the requesting host's IP number and only sees the router as the requesting host. The problem I face with this is that I have a security function on my FTP server that auto-blocks IP numbers that fail to login too many times. When this function is enabled, the FTP server ends up blocking the router's IP number when too many failed attempts occur. This causes all subsequent FTP connections to be blocked since the AEXn acts as the proxy to open all connections.
For reference, I am using the Synology DS-107e NAS for my server needs. Any tips on how to get my device to properly see the requesting host's IP number would be greatly appreciated.

Chuck H. wrote:
The issue is not getting the port forwarding working. The system works fine - it's just that there is a bug in the way port forwarding works that prevents me from using a security function to auto-block IP's that fail logins too many times in a row. When those IP's do trigger the block, my NAS blocks the IP of my router instead of the requesting host. There is some problem where the router is not properly including the requesting host IP number in the port forward to the destination host. Granted, this is not really a big deal - but for security management purposes is a necessary function for my NAS to work properly.
I would say the issue is really with your NAS or whoever is trying to connect to it. I have an Infrant (now Netgear) ReadyNAS+ 1TB connected with the AEBSn through the Gigabit connection and FTP works perfectly.
My ReadyNAS has a similar function on blocking IPs with multiple login failures. That's pretty standard on many devices that offer FTP interfaces. But I do not experience any of the failed IP logins.

Port Forwarding, MI424WR

I'm not even sure I'll give enough information here, because I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, I've been working with a couple of "technical" people from my office.
Essentially, I'm trying to connect two devices (Yamaha Disklavier Pianos) over my FIOS connection (for a process called Remote Lesson) and need to utilize port forwarding. I've tried the instructions on the www.actiontec.com website (Basic Port Forwarding on the MI424WR Verion Fios Router), but have been unable to connect successfully.
Basically, here's the two things I need to do (cut and pasted from a technical document draft). Can someone please advise what might be going wrong?   I could also forward the entire "connection" document to someone who might want to take a look at it and get a clearer picture.
At any rate, here are steps 2 and 3 of the process we're trying to do:
2. Port Forwarding for Remote Lesson (WAN to LAN)
- Port 58092 is used in both TCP and UDP by default.
        - Note: You can choose any port unless it has already used.
- Please configure a system to forward the access of this port to Disklavier.
3. Release of the port to the Internet (LAN to WAN)
- If the access of port 58092 is filtered, please release this port in both TCP and UDP.
         Note: If your partner has configured another port number, please release that port in both TCP and UDP.
Port setting table
PORT FORWARDING (WAN TO LAN): IP Address (original LAN Address)
Port Number (origin)
Protocol: Both TCP and UDP
RELEASE OF THE PORT (LAN TO WAN): Port Number: Destination or all
   Protocol: Both TCP and UDP
Thanks for being patient with a "newbie" - I hope someone can help.

levesq56 wrote:
Essentially, I'm trying to connect two devices (Yamaha Disklavier Pianos) over my FIOS connection (for a process called Remote Lesson) and need to utilize port forwarding. I've tried the instructions on the www.actiontec.com website (Basic Port Forwarding on the MI424WR Verion Fios Router), but have been unable to connect successfully.
Thanks for being patient with a "newbie" - I hope someone can help.
If you're only trying to connect the 2 devices within your local lan you do not need to do anything with port forwarding. You would only need to add port forwarding rules if you are going to access the devices from remote sites.
The below addresses step 2 of your question.
Step 3 of your question is not needed as the actiontec does not block any port access from the LAN to the WAN
Step 2 allowing wan to lan access
If you are doing the latter then you would want to give the device fixed ip addresses, make sure they are out of the dhcp range of the actiontec router.
Then go to firewall setting
Select Port Forwarding tab
Select New Entry
add the IP address of the device in the Local Host field
Make sure Forward to Port is set as Same as incoming Port
Make sure Schedule is set as Always
Under protocols Select User defined
Make the service name whatever you want - e.g Piano
Select new server ports
Under protocols Select TCP
Under source port select single
enter 58092
Make sure destination port saya Any
Hit OK
Select New server ports again and repeat the last five steps for protocol UDP
then say OK
Say OK to the Edit port Forwarding rule
Now you should be able to access the device from the outside WAN

WRV210 loses port forwarding settings after reboot

Along with wireless problems that have already been documented about this device I am having problems with port forwarding where it will lose all its settings after losing its power. I then try to go into the management for port forwarding and am not able to put the settings back in as every time I hit 'Save' it just loads the page back up with no settings applied. Another strange thing is that the protocol comboboxes only have options for UDP or Both.
I then reapply the latest firmware and am able to enter the settings again.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I'm at my wits end with this one.
Thanks,
Paul

Dear Paul,
Thank you for reaching the Small Business Support Community.
If you are already running the latest firmware release version 2.0.1.5, all I can suggest you is to contact the Small Business Support Center directly to determine if this is a hardware related problem, notice this product is already End of Life/End of Support and therefore the support is subject to warranty or contract terms and conditions;
https://supportforums.cisco.com/community/netpro/small-business/sbcountrysupport
Please do not hesitate to reach me back if there is any further assistance I may help you with in the meantime.
Kind regards,
Jeffrey Rodriguez S. .:|:.:|:.
Cisco Customer Support Engineer
*Please rate the Post so other will know when an answer has been found.

RVS4000 Port Forwarding not working

I am trying to forward ports through my RVS4000 however I have been unable to get it to work.
I have enabled the firewall and set the ports mapping to the correct address and enabled them, however I can't reach any devices.
All advice gratefully received :>)
NM

When troubleshooting Port forwarding on any device we use tools like Nmap on a outside machine looking in at your network, and http://www.canyouseeme.org/ to see if on the server or device you are using if the outside world can see the ports open. There is no known bug or issue with port forwarding on this device as long as you are on the latest firmware. If Nmap and canyouseeme is not showing the ports open you need to look at the internal workings of the network. I.E. does the same ports work on the inside of your network, second is what is between the RVS4000 and the Internet. Other routers or switches, Modem, and ISP. We have seen everyone of the previous devices block ports. When using Nmap or canyouseeme the ports should be open.
Do you have a topology of your network and what ports you are trying to port forward?
Cisco Small Business Support Center
Randy Manthey
CCNA, CCNA - Security

RV320 Port Forwarding BROKEN

Greetings,
I recently purchased an RV320 to use in my network, but even on the latest firmware (1.1.0.09) am having an issue that ALL (internal and external) traffic is being forwarded when I enable port forwarding to my web server. I have managed to work around the problem using PAT, but I run Windows Server 2012 Essentials, and every time it rebooots for updates it checks and configures Port Forwarding. WSE also reports my router is mis-configured if I change it back - an annoyance I can live with for now if there is a fix on the horizon. This is a MAJOR headache and I would like to ask if there is an ETA for a fix so I can put this issue to bed and not worry that my netowrk will lose connectivity to the outside world randomly.
Please advise,
Bob Hessenauer
Additionally, my ISP has blocked all Port 25 traffic, so I have an email forwarder sending on port 8001. If I were to set up port triggering on outside port 8001 to internal port 25, would the forwarding rule for SMTP then kick in and forward the traffic the rest of the way to my email server?
Just wondering if that configuration would work instead of PAT.
Thanks,
Bob

All,
After an online chat with Cisco I finally called the support number. Enrique (a very patient and compotent engineer) re-flashed the device with the latest firmware and we set about to setting the configuration step-by-step. As of this writing I am pleased to announce that the problem is resolved and traffic is flowing beautifully WITH the Port forwarding rules in place. For those whose ISP is currently blocking port 25, there are services (dnsExit) that will forward your external email to your server on an alternate port, which can be translated to port 25 through Port Address Translation and then forwarded to the appropriate server.
My thanks to Enrique for his help and patience in finally getting this issue resolved.
Bob Hessenauer

LRT214 Accessing Web Services with Port Forwarding & Port Translation

Good afternoon to all,
Purchased the LRT214 yesterday afternoon and it was a breeze to configure the internet settings and get back online. But after the initial configuration, I ran into some trouble getting the router to do port translation together with port forwarding.
The port forwarding setup is straighforward and works perfectly, the same cannot be said for the port translation which does not seem to work. I programmed the following,
1) external port 88 forwarded to internal port 80 for 192.169.1.12
2) external port 89 forwarded to internal port 80 for 192.169.1.13
Can someone point me in the correct direction to achieve the above?
Router Model : LRT214
Firmware Revision : 1.0.2.06
Working Mode : Gateway

Port Address Translation => Service Management
Add two Services for the port translations and then add the translations to the list. Let us know if you get any errors.
Please remember to Kudo those that help you.
Linksys
Communities Technical Support

Port Forward Bug?

I have the latest Apple Airport Extreme (AC router) and everyhting has been working flawlessly. However today, certain services that were forwarded and working, have stopped. Specifically the L2TP ports (500, 1701 and 4500) and the remote admin port (311). Others like 80 and 443 are working just fine. Using an outside service to check if the ports are open or not, it tells me the problem ports are closed, however they are configured properly in the airport extreme.
Nothing has changed. I'm completely lost.

From other reports there are indeed port forwarding bugs.. the major one is port 21 FTP which you are not using but the bug is very serious.
https://discussions.apple.com/message/22927625#22927625
The last post in this thread by.. SBeattie2
I think will condemn you to replacement of the AC by a router that actually conforms to standards.

Rv320 - port forwarding from a specific WAN IP

Hi, i just received and configuring the rv320 router. I can successfully set the port forwarding from WAN to specific LAN IP address. I would like to know is it possible for this device to set the port forwarding from a specific WAN IP address? Thank you for the help.

I have the same problem, and have already tried creating a Access Rule without success. I need to forward Remote Desktop Port 3389 from a specific public IP address to a internal server. I do this with other lower-level Cisco Small Business routers all the time, but cannot get this to work with the RV320. Here's what I've tried:
1) Create new Access Rule
2) Create new Service called TS for TCP port 3389-3389
3) Set new Access Rule to Allow
4) Set Source Interface to Any (I've also tried WAN1, etc.)
5) Set Source IP to the only single public IP that will be allowed
6) Set Destination IP to the single internal IP address
7) Set Scheduling to Always
When I use any standard RDP app from the outside, the router blocks 3389 access.
What am I missing? Can anyone help resolve this, or do I need to call in to Cisco Support?

EA6900 port forwarding manage

I have EA6900. and I set UPNP enable. also set user can define port forwarding.
When I open single port forwarding, there is only 3 port I opened. that's fine.
BUT.. when I try port scanning on my home IP. I can see 7 ports is open. Not BT open.
I can NOT find any page that let me close those ports. even I turn off UPNP then reboot router.
I am still not allow to manage those open port.

Internet Service Provider and Modem Configurations
What ISP Service do you have? Cable or DSL?
What ISP Modem Mfr. and model # do you have?
If the ISP modem has a built in router, it's best to bridge the modem. Having 2 routers on the same line can cause connection problems: Link>http://www.practicallynetworked.com/networking/fixing_double_nat.htm and http://cognitiveanomalies.com/cisco-nat-how-nat-works/ If the modem can't be bridged then see if the modem has a DMZ option and input the IP address the router gets from the modem and put that into the modems DMZ.
doogy wrote:
I have EA6900. and I set UPNP enable. also set user can define port forwarding.
When I open single port forwarding, there is only 3 port I opened. that's fine.
BUT.. when I try port scanning on my home IP. I can see 7 ports is open. Not BT open.
I can NOT find any page that let me close those ports. even I turn off UPNP then reboot router.
I am still not allow to manage those open port.

WRT160NL Port Forwarding Bug?

I have 2 NAS drives with FTP servers built in. I want to set my WRT160NL to forward single ports to these servers.
In the single port forwarding page, I set:
External port 100, Internal port 21, Both, IP: 192.168.1.10
External port 200, Internal port 21, Both, IP: 192.168.1.20
This should be fine since there are 2 devices, each with their own IP address. But, I get an error message when I try and save "The port range already exists". If i reconfigure one of the devices to use a different internal port then I can save, but I should not have to.
Is this a known bug?

Thanks, I know there are workarounds (I mentioned I could reconfigure one of the NAS servers in my post). That is not what I am after.
As it turns out, if I use the preset "FTP" then I can also use Port 21, so I can set 2 devices, but this is still not the correct solution.
After more research, this appears to be a problem with many other models, why doesn't Cisco/Linksys fix this issue. Seems easy enough to me. This could even be just an issue with the javascript and there is no technical reason why it was blocked.
Message Edited by do on 10-07-2009 01:04 PM
Message Edited by do on 10-07-2009 01:05 PM

External Service Management: Condition Table is empty

Hello Experts,
I have a scenario in ECC 5.0 - Material Management
I am trying to post a Service Entry Sheet and I am getting an error "Conditions for service price determination incomplete". Upon investation I found that the standard SAP settings for condition types, condition schema available under External Service Management node in SPRO are all empty. i.e. There are no standard condition type available, no standard condition schema (MS000) available in the system.
I dont know the cause of this problem but is there any way that we can import these standard entries from cleint 000. Or is there any other quick solution for this?
Pls suggest.
Best Regards,
Amit

Hi,
please read the following SAP notes:
499722
25357
27024
691852
438718
798798
353482
Regards,
Edit

RV042 Port forwarding stops working when Firewall is enabled

Hey all,
I have a RV042 router on a single WAN and an internal LAN. I have configured port forwarding as follows:
HTTP[TCP/80~80]->10.0.0.6
HTTPS[TCP/443~443]->10.0.0.6
IMAP[TCP/143~143]->10.0.0.5
IMAP SSL[TCP/993~993]->10.0.0.5
SMTP SSL[TCP/587~587]->10.0.0.5
Everything works just fine when I have the firewall DISABLED. However, when I enable it the behaviour is erratic. 1 out of 10 attempts to connect to ANY port forwarded works. Almost all attempts time out.
Notice that this happens even if using only the default firewall rules (which should be bypassed by the port forwarding as I read in other posts).
My second try was to create firewall rules manually, overriding the default ones. I tried adding rules from source WAN1 (where my connection is) to ANY and to SINGLE IP's on every port. Nothing seems to work.
I don't know what I'm doing wrong, this is really bugging me. I had to turn the firewall off so we can access our servers from outside the office. This shouldn't have to be done.
Do you know anything I could try?
Best regards,
Theo
EDIT:
Just found out that my firewall is getting LOTS and LOTS of Blocked - SYN Flood entries. I think this is why we are having trouble with the firewall. Could this be the problem? I have no idea where all these SYN packets are coming from since they appear with spoofed IPs or come from different bots all over.

Hi Theo, if you want to over ride the default state table, you need to first make firewall rules to block all access then make your permission rules.
Such an example would be-
Action Deny
Service All
Source interface WAN
Source IP any
Destination IP any
Save
Action Permit
Service RDP
Source interface WAN
Source IP -xx.xx.xx.xx
Destination IP - xx.xx.xx.xx
Save
As for your concern about the syn flood, it can be a likely cause of your problems. Does the logging facility of the router give any indications?
-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

E3000 ~ spontaneous port forwarding IP changes

I have an E3000 with firnware 1.0.04.
A forwarded port is spontaneously changing the IP address assigned to it, but with no change indicated in the singel port forwarding configuration.
I have a web server on IP=XXX.XXX.XXX.7, and another device on my LAN with an internal web server at IP= XXX.XXX.XXX.8. The single port forwarding configuration is:
HTTP, external port 80, internal port 80, protocol=TCP, to internal IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.7, enable checked
The configuration is saved, and all works well for for hours and/or days and I can use the web host from the intenet as expected. However, after a few days or hours the E3000 suddenly starts sending the http traffic to IP=xxx.xxx.xxx.8 instead of xxx.xxx.xxx.7. When I log in to the router and look at the port forwarding page, it still says it's forwarding the http traffic to xxx.xxx.xx.7 ~ even though all http traffic is being sent to xxx.xxx.xxx.8! I have to reboot the router to get the port forwarding to work properly. If I leave the device at xxx.xxx.xxx.8 powered off, the router seems to work fine for extended periods.
There are no port forwarding services in the router that reference IP=xxx.xxx.xxx.8 , and it does not appear that the port forwarding problem is related to DHCP. All devices on my network have a reserved DHCP address based on their MAC. It does not appear that the spontaneous port forwarding change occurs when when the xxx.xxx.xxx.8 device powers up and gets it's address via DHCP. I have also deleted the xxx.xxx.xxx.8 device from the DHCP reservation table and simply access the device as needed by referencing it's IP, and xxx.xxx.xxx.8 is outside the range of DHCP assigned addresses, and the spontaneous port redirection still occurs once in a while.
Is there a known bug where forwarded ports are sent to the wrong IP address? Is there a fix in the works? Is there other data I can gather that might help?

Thanks for the reply. I have a bunch of services running on several hosts, so configuring each port to forward to the proper host using the E3000 single port forwarding page is the only way to go. It has been 4 days with uPNP turned off on the host (uPNP is still active in the router), and the problem has not occurred as yet. However, sometimes it has taken over a week for the problem to occur. So far things are looking good, and I am starting to believe that this host has been "stealing" port 80 by remapping it in the router via uPNP, albeit for reasons I do not understand.
Because a uPNP device can change the port-to-DestinationIPAddress map in the router, the router really should be able to display the actual port map rather than just displaying the desired configuration. Not being able to see the actual mapping make as much sense as not being able to not see actual DHCP assignments and only being able to see the desired DHCP configuration. With the widespread deployment of uPNP, and considering the programming simplicty needed to display some table entries from the router's memory, this would seem an obvious and easy feature to add to the next firmware release. A log of runtime configuration changes would be appreciated too, so that people can ascertain what device on the LAN caused a router configuration change and record what the changes were. This sure would make troubleshooting a lot easier...

RV320 Bug - Service Management Table (Port Forwarding)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for