RV320, specific traffic through specific wan port

Hello all,
I love the RV320, one of the best routers i've bought in years and it works like a charm with our Fiber connection on WAN1 and Coax Cable on WAN2.
The only question I have right now, i know it is possible to sent specific traffic (DNS,HTTP etc) through specific WAN ports.
But would it also be possible in some way to say *.website.com traffic will go through WAN port x only?
Specific apps we use are only available through an IP coming from the provider we use on WAN2 (cable coax), so it would be handy if we could say that if app this or that and/or website is being called, auto serve it through WAN port x.
Is this possible and if not, something cisco could add?

Dear Michiel,
Thank you for reaching Small Business Support Community.
Besides the service management options available I do not see a particular feature to accomplish your needs. I work on this community forum as an analyst and I am going to mark this post as a business opportunity for improvement of the device.
Thank you for your comment and please do not hesitate to reach me back if there is anything I may assist 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.

Similar Messages

Macs with Filesharing Turned on Appearing on Networks Through the WAN Port

I am trying to find out why it is that Macs that have filesharing turned on are appearing on people's network even when they are not on the same LAN.
We run a small ISP in our town and have about 180 client sites that we service. I had a call from a client panicking because he could suddenly see unknown devices showing up in the Finder under Shared Devices. He could even see someone else's iTunes Library available for sharing, etc. This of course makes no sense, because although obviously all clients are technically on the same physical network, each client site has its own router, and is therefore behind a router.
(And please do not comment about people getting onto his Wi-Fi, or else the bug in the Mac OS that sometimes does not release devices from the shared devices section even after they are gone from the network. This is NOT any of these situations. Please read on...).
Initially I was convinced that he has opened up some port that he should not have. To test this I went to this client site, reset the router to clear any unwanted programming and plugged in my Mac directly into the WAN port of his router. And sure enough I appeared on his network. If I turned filesharing off, then I would disappear (which makes sense), but point is that with filesharing turned on, I seemed to be going through the router's firewall. Also interestingly enough, this penetration only seemed to be in one direction. That is WAN -> LAN, but not LAN -> WAN (I could not ever see any of HIS machines). Also, while I would appear on his network, I was not accessible by him. He could not actually connect to me.
Is this happening because of Bonjour? If so, can I block Bonjour by closing some ports or protocols? But I also do not want to do that if it will cause any other applications from getting through that should be getting through (although I do not understand why Bonjour should be broadcasting through a firewall anyway).
Thank you in advance for any comments.

The best test I can suggest is to access when the Security Gateway is up and you are on the same LAN network as the ADT setup. If that works, unless the feeds are routed through some ADT server, the WAN side can be tested next. The ADT Gateway will not have a public IP for you to access. Do you have a link to a manual, or a the ADT model number of the gateway, so I can take a look at the setup guide?
The normal setup is
ISP <-> WAN IP <LAN Router/Gateway/Modem> <-> AEBS <Ethernet> ADT Gateway (LAN IP).
LAN IPs are typically hidden from the world and are private IPs like 192.168.1.x ro 192.168.0.x or 10.x.x.x or 172.16.x.x.

How to generate specific traffic types for testing?

Hi all.
Is there a good tool or tools (Windows-based) for generating and testing traffic through specific ports to a remote host? I know what I am asking for but not sure how to put it into the right words, so here' s an example. Normally in a situation where if I set up a router with some NAT and a zone firewall, and want to test whether the outside world can get to a web server internally, I would attach a real web server to the inside interface, set up the rules and policies to reach it, and then test from a laptop or PC attached in some way to the outside (Internet) inteface.
But I don't always have a web server to plug in, and this says nothing about other protocols I'd want to test. For example ntp protocol on udp 123.
So ideally I would take two laptops and install the testing tool on each, plug one into the LAN and the other to the outside thus simuluating some random Internet host, and then they can talk to each other over any port or protocol they allow for and show the results.
Not sure why I can't seem to articulate this very well today but I hope I'm getting the idea across. I'm not looking for a port scanner or something but rather a tool for testing end-to-end success of communication between two systems over an intermediiary device (router), over certain ports or protocols.
Thank you!

I looked over quite a few in there, would still need to download and test. Seems there are a lot of home grown tools by university engineers out there
Unfortunately iperf isn't Windows-based which is what I need for this scenario but it does look very intreesting in itself.
I did find that nmap has nping which employs an echo responder so hopefully it can do more than just icmp. Nonetheless that whole list has very interesting tools which I'll review in more detail when time permits.
Thank you!

Can the AEBS untag a VLAN (802.1q) on the WAN port?

My modem (actually a fibre optical network terminal) provides a DHCP ethernet port. I would like to use my airport extreme for routing and wireless. Normally this would be a very simple setup, except the the modem requires all traffic to go over a specific VLAN (802.1q tagged). So, for this to work I would need the Airport to be able to untag/tag a specific VLAN on its WAN port. Is this possible?

I'll probably try to find the most minimal device that I can get to do transparent untagging of VLAN traffic. Not really sure where I might find that, but will start researching. I'd like to avoid using the current buggy router supplied by my ISP if at all possible!
I would suggest that you look at the various products provided by Cisco. FWIW I use a Cisco RVS4000 as my "main" router and have set up a number of VLANs for my home network with it.

Troubleshooting Airport Extreme's wan port?

I have an Airport Extreme base station that doesn't seem to be communicating through its WAN port. Both Apple and Windoze computers can connect to it, wired or wirelessly, but I am unable to make the base station communicate with a gateway device, a (PPoE) DSL modem. My brother (whose device this is) was having the same problem with his cable modem.
As the Airport boots, the link light on the WAN port blinks green a couple of times, only instantaneously, but otherwise remains dark. Once it's booted, the status light blinks amber. And of course there is no throughput, no connectivity to the Internet.
I also have a LinkSys WiFi router that works perfectly using the same gateway device and the same ethernet cable, which gives me to believe both the modem and the cable are in proper working order. All the configuration information I'm entering into the Airport's web interface I'm cut and pasting from the same text file I habitually use to the LinkSys router (to cut down on clerical errors). So presuming it's configured properly, presuming the cable and the gateway aren't at fault, I have to think the WAN port has given up the ghost.
So I thought to ask the Apple cognoscenti if they agree with my diagnosis. Is there a diagnostic I'm overlooking? Do the WAN ports on these devices have a history of being problematic?
TIA
Slanjevar!

I have discovered the chief problem was that the Airport doesn't take kindly to unresolved/unacknowledged errors/conditions under the Status button on the Summary page of the Airport utility. It was regarding "extended mode" as an abnormality requiring acknowledgment, as well as my switching off all wireless security, as a temporary diagnostic measure. Once I'd told it to 'Ignore' those conditions, I got both a solid green status light and a steady green link light on the WAN port.
However, it still isn't passing data.
As I was stumbling around in the Airport utility's GUI (before resolving the "start button" problem), I noticed it had an "Extend a wireless network" mode. Since what my brother was after in the first place was getting stronger signal to the far end of the house, I asked if this wouldn't better suit his needs than substituting the Airport for his current (underpowered?) WiFi router. He agreed, so I've changed my focus to setting up the Airport as an 'extender.'
Now, reconfigured in 'extender' mode, its 'Status' on the GUI's 'Summary' page shows 'Normal' and the status light is steady green. The GUI for my WRT54 (with DD-WRT firmware) shows it is authenticated and joined to the network, as both a LAN and a wireless client. And the Airport's logs concur: "Joined BSS [WRT54's MAC]" and "Installed unicast TKIP key for authenticator [WRT54's MAC]".
I've done this with the Airport either using DHCP or with a statically configured IP address to see if it made any difference. It does not, either to its ability to join the network or to its (lack of) throughput. So every indication I can find confirms it is a connected and fully functioning member of my network.
I also have an XPSP3 box connected to one of the LAN ports on the Airport. The NICs on both ends show a solid green link light. The Airport's logs acknowledge that the XP box is connected: "Connection accepted from [::ffff:192.168.1.3]". And the XP box can 'ping' the Airport. All of which spells "connected" to me.
However, the XP box can neither draw an IP address (the Airport's DHCP clients list remains empty) nor communicate with anything upstream of the Airport (which it only can do once I have given it a static IP address). If I try to tracert or pathping from the XP box to the WRT54 (via the Airport), it stalls out at the Airport. The response is the same whether I have the Airport's WAN port connected to a LAN port on the WRT54 or not.
Address scheme-wise, my WiFi router (WRT54) is on 192.168.1.1. The XP box that I have connected to the Airport via ethernet has a reserved IP of 192.168.1.3, but now is configured statically to that address because the Airport (seemingly) does not support it contacting the DHCP server. The Airport consistently had been drawing the first available address from the DHCP pool, 192.168.1.10, but now I have it statically configured to .100 because my brother doesn't use DHCP reservations on his network, and I'm replicating how he will configure it to leave nothing to chance. Having a static address saves him grief having to figure out what its address has become should the Airport utility not be able to find it (which seems to be its norm) and he has to connect manually through the Airport utility.
I've spent almost every waking minute tinkering with this thing since midday yesterday and I've not yet seen evidence that the Airport has passed so much as a single bit of data. And it isn't just the WAN port, it doesn't want to pass anything wirelessly either. This thing is about to get my goat. Remind me never again to offer my brother a favor.
Any thoughts? Humorous anecdotes? Naughty limericks?
EDIT:
I also have a network detector on my cell phone than can identify every device, wireless or otherwise, on the network its connected to. But it does not "see" either the Airport or, naturally, the XP box beyond it.

Using specific wan port for a particular domain/IP

I have RV042 router which is connected to the internet by both the wan ports and I want to use it as a load balancer so that both of my internet connections can be utilized evenly. But now I have an issue in this scenario as my remote application gets logout whenever the communicating IP address changes.
Now here is my question.
Is there any way out so that I can specify the wan port used for a particular public IP address/domain name?

Hi Kinshuk, thank you for using our forum, my name is Luis I am part of the Small business Support community. I read your post and I have an article from our knowledge base and called Guide me, you could use to configure a protocol binding in order to specify the WAN port that you want redirect and select the specific traffic.
http://www6.nohold.net/CiscoSB/Loginr.aspx?login=1&pid=2&app=search&vw=1&articleid=622
If you scroll down you will see a section called "Manage Protocol Binding" here you will see instructions to configure that.
If you have any question please let me know.
I hope you find this answer useful
Greetings,
Luis Arias.
Cisco Network Support Engineer.

RV042 - direct browsing traffic to only one WAN port?

Hi, I have a RV042 (firmware 1.3.13.02-tm). Is it possible to configure so traffic from a specific domain (incl. its sub-domains) is directed exclusively to one WAN port? If so, how can I do this? Thanks.

Hi PAC, in a load balance environment it affects only outbound traffic which would use protocol bind to force traffic through a particular WAN port, meaning it won't affect inbound traffic.
The access rules page only supports source interface but you may try to create an access rule that looks something like this;
Action Allow
Service - (Whatever service you're using)
Source interface WAN 1
Source IP address - Range of public IP address from the domain/sub domains
Destination Ip address - The IP address of your subnet or specific nodes
Now, if you're using a load balance environment, you may want to bind traffic to WAN 1 that originate from the specific hosts that make the request to the domain/sub domains to ensure the source IP address leaving the router otherwise it would be possible to have a different source IP going over the 2nd WAN.
I'm not sure if it would work this way but to the best of my knowledge this would about be the only way to make it work since the router doesn't support telling inbound services to use a specific WAN.
-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

RV320 WAN port drops connection

I have an RV320 connected to a cable modem on the WAN port. every once in a while, less than a day but more than a few hours, the WAN port stops sending traffic. I tried Static and DHCP (im supposed to use DHCP but for testing I used static as well) for my ip address. when the issue occurs, I can fully access the router via the lan side and manage it. when I view the interface stats, its up, with an ip address. no traffic passes through it though, verified this many times and using different methods. when I renew the ip, it just hangs. when I release and renew it hangs and never gets a new ip. I have to down the interface or reboot and then it gets an ip and works fine. I've also tried autonegotiate and hard setting the port speed. the logs are no help, not indicating anything. previously I had an apple airport express hooked up to the connection and it worked fine for years. so I know the connection and cabling, etc is good. any ideas? im running the latest code. I have not tried the wan2 port to see if that works. thanks!

I wondered that too. primary reason I left that reasoning was that my old firewall, an apple airport express, worked fine. never lost connection, ever (that I was aware of). this does it multiple times a day. I did check anyway and didn't see anything obvious. I ran a packet capture and was a bit surprised how clean it was (for the internet). my modem is in bridge modem so I see everything at the wan port. ill attach a snippet below. thank you!
9:34:15.000 AM
Mar 13 09:34:15 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
9:09:45.000 AM
Mar 13 09:09:45 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
9:01:34.000 AM
Mar 13 09:01:34 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
7:38:51.000 AM
Mar 13 07:38:51 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
7:22:24.000 AM
Mar 13 07:22:24 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
6:08:02.000 AM
Mar 13 06:08:02 firewall. kernel: WAN [2] DOWN
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
6:08:01.000 AM
Mar 13 06:08:01 firewall. kernel: ip[0.0.0.0] mask[0.0.0.0]
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
6:08:01.000 AM
Mar 13 06:08:01 firewall. kernel: ip[74.141.x.xmask[0.0.0.0]
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
6:08:01.000 AM
Mar 13 06:08:01 firewall. kernel: [eth0] lanip=192.168.0.1, mask=255.255.255.0
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
6:08:01.000 AM
Mar 13 06:08:01 firewall. kernel: WAN [2] UP
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
5:59:44.000 AM
Mar 13 05:59:44 firewall. kernel: WAN [2] DOWN
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
5:59:42.000 AM
Mar 13 05:59:42 firewall. kernel: ip[0.0.0.0] mask[0.0.0.0]
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
5:59:42.000 AM
Mar 13 05:59:42 firewall. kernel: ip[74.141.x.xmask[0.0.0.0]
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
5:59:42.000 AM
Mar 13 05:59:42 firewall. kernel: [eth0] lanip=192.168.0.1, mask=255.255.255.0
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
5:59:42.000 AM
Mar 13 05:59:42 firewall. kernel: WAN [2] UP
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
5:09:54.000 AM
Mar 13 05:09:54 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:44.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:44 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:41.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:41 firewall. kernel: WAN [2] DOWN
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:39.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:39 firewall. kernel: ip[0.0.0.0] mask[0.0.0.0]
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:39.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:39 firewall. kernel: ip[74.141.x.xmask[0.0.0.0]
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:39.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:39 firewall. kernel: [eth0] lanip=192.168.0.1, mask=255.255.255.0
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:39.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:39 firewall. kernel: WAN [2] UP
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:47:38.000 AM
Mar 13 03:47:38 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
3:31:07.000 AM
Mar 13 03:31:07 firewall. kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
•host = firewall.
•source = udp:514
•sourcetype = syslog
3/13/15
2:54:38.000 AM

RV016 redirect one specific secured website to WAN

Hi,
We have one secure website which uses http Protocoll. The website has an IP address security, once the ip addresses changes, the session timeouts and you will need to login again. It is nearly impossible to login.
I have used the Protocol Binding as follows:
Service: http
Source IP: 192.168.100.1 to 192.168.100.254
Destination IP: 80.80.228.10 to 80.80.228.10 (IP of the website)
Interface: WAN2
The above configuration fails, but if I insert in the destination ip 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.0 it works.
Any idea how can I divert the http traffic only for the specific website to one wan?
Regards,
Stephane

Hi Tom,
thanks for your reply. No, this site is no https. I have already another binding rule for https which works fine.
As already said, if I set the destination ip to any it works. Setting only to the websites ip not.
I made also a ping test to the website from the RV016 and it confirms the websites IP.
Regards,
Stephane

Beginner Question: SA520 Admin access through WAN port

Dear all,
I've a beginner question regarding my brand new SA520: How can I configure the box so that I'm able to access the admin GUI not only through the LAN ports but also from the WAN ports?
I tried already to allow inbound traffic to the firewall's internal IP address (not sure if done right, so) and granted the admin user access profile from WAN and LAN: I can access the box from the LAN but not from the WAN. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Eric
PS: Yupp, I know that it's not a good idea to expose a FW admin GUI to the WAN - but this is only a lab environment

Go to Administration -> Users.
click on the 'Edit User Policies' 'Login' button. It's there you can enable WAN access.

Route an specific application through a proxy

I'm trying to route all the conections from an specific application through a proxy (HTTP) with user authentication.
The application doesn't have an option for this.
I know I can do this in two ways. The first one is modify the network configuration in the System Preferences, however, this affects all the connections, which I don't want.
The second method is using a third-party software: Proxifier, but it is too expansive for what I think can be done naturally by the system.
Is there another method, preferably free, to do this? Something in Terminal or similar?
Thank you.

Yes, it can be done; Assuming all of the class files
you need are installed, and the servlet engine has
access to other resources you need (the correct files,
other devices, etc) you can do it;The class files will be installed. Does the servlet engine normally have access?
I am probably making a Windoze exe from the class files, since the target users are all using Windoze. Does this have any effect on the question?
I would avoid it on general principles.
There are a couple of things to consider:
Your use of the word application make it seem like you
are essentially starting a Java batch job and running
it in a servlet engine. If you are doing this for a
job, you might find that employer policies prohibit
the use of web server resources for batch processing.Not a batch job, the application is basically a server itself. It is going to have request coming in on a port and it is going to respond. I am not trying to do this without the knowledge of the server admin. They are willing to let me run the server app. The only thing is that I need not tell them every time I want to stop/start the server app since the web server is at a remote location from where I am. If I can start/stop the server remotely, it saves them the trouble.
I can also use this interface to monitor the error log, etc...
The security models in servlet engines are frequently
different than for batch, the especially the way they
are optimized is different.
You will not be able to wait to reveal final results
unless the application is very quick; Browsers
timeout rather quickly.Like I said above, I dont need to wait for results. I just need to be able to make a request to a servlet, and have it start/stop the application. hmmm... stopping might be a problem right, since the servlet wont have a reference to the app once it is running.... or can it hold the reference?? I am quite lost since I have never worked with servlets before.
Thanks again,
Dewang

BT is blocking specific traffic - Connection probl...

I started having this problem about two weeks ago, after multiple phonecalls to BT and a couple of emails nothing has been done, so hopefully someone on the forum can help.
The problem is the BT server that my hub connects to runs software to block specific traffic, I assume this is handy for restricted torrents or illegal downloads. But what it's blocking is a game called EVE Online, I used to play this game without a single problem until about two weeks ago. I logged in one day and the lag was unbearable, mainly due to the fact BT is blocking around 90% of packets that are sent to me. As I said, I used to be able to play no problem, but now I can't even go on for 2 minutes before I get kicked.
I've confirmed with the EVE support team that BT is causing the problem, EVE uses UDP and it only requires a packet loss of 5 consecutive packets before the game disconnects you. This may not seem like a lot, but due to the nature of it, any more than 5 packets can cause major problems in the game, so they just disconnect you. A friend of mine also had this problem, but to a lesser extent, but it did span accross multiple games, he has since then switched to another broadband provider which I will not name, and hasn't had the issue since. In EVE, recently BT have been known to block traffic, I'm not the first to ask EVE support for assistance on the matter, so they weren't strangers to the problem.
I've ran a program called Ping Plotter to the EVE server, for those of you unaware Ping Plotter is a useful tool to (as the name suggests) Plot the latency (ping) of your connection to the server. PP also records packet loss and the exact route the client is using to connect to the server. The results average about 90% packet loss, Below are the results of PP.
500 trace count, 1 second per trace.
Packet loss is highlighted in RED
BT IP's are highlighted in BLUE
EVE IP's are highlighted in GREEN
Target Name: srv200-g.ccp.cc
IP: 87.237.38.200
Date/Time: 21/01/2014 2:41:46 AM to 21/01/2014 2:50:12 AM
Hop Sent Error    PL% Min Max Avg Host Name / [IP]
1   500     0     0.0     1   34 2 BThomehub.home [192.168.1.254]  PC TO HUB
2   500    423    84.6    9   57   21 esr19.edinburgh8.broadband.bt.net [213.1.130.142] HUB TO BT
3   500    474    94.8   10 149 26 [213.1.130.125]
4   500   480   96.0 18   66 29 [213.1.69.74]
5   500    481    96.2 19   63 31 [31.55.165.77]
6   500    476   95.2 19   71 35 [31.55.165.107]
7    14    11     78.6   18   53 29 acc1-10GigE-4-1-3.mr.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.250.114]
8   133   126   94.7 29   62 47 core2-te0-13-0-14.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.250.46]
9   262   238   90.8 27 69   47 peer3-te0-1-0-7.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.254.251]
10  500   443   88.6 25   74 40 ccpgames.com [195.66.226.23]
11  500    465   93.0 25   69 42 te-d2-e2.ccp.cc [87.237.37.246]
12  500   422    84.4 25 77 38 srv200-g.ccp.cc [87.237.38.200]
As you can see, that is completely unacceptable. The connection between my PC to my HUB is perfect, from the HUB to BT is where things go pearshaped.
Onto another note, the three times I've phoned, I've spoken to someone reading from a card. What I mean by that is they haven't got a clue what they're speaking about. They are denying there is a problem because 'ping google' works fine. the first time I was redirected to the tech support, but then found out I wasn't paying for the service so I couldn't use it. The second time the advisor hung up on me when I requested to speak to her supervisor, and the third I hung up because the advisor claimed BT broadband isn't designed to support online gaming, and he said a 90% packet loss is to be expected when online gaming, alright then.
Any help whatsoever on this issue is greatly appreciated, If I've missed anything out just ask for it and i'll post it
Thanks.

What home hub model do you have and have you tried rebooting it? Lots of UDP traffic can be difficult for some routers to handle due to inbuilt firewall, an older router or possibly a router thats starting to have problems might cause issues(Dust blocking airflow slowing the processor down) like this due to load on the processor of the router(These things normally have very slow processors). Have you tried running extended ping tests ? I'd try ping -n 1000 www.google.co.uk and ping -n 1000 www.bbc.co.uk additionally try using ping -l 750 -n 1000 www.google.co.uk and ping -l 750 -n 1000 www.bbc.co.uk , What package are you on are you sure you're not on a package with traffic shaping? If the devices BT use to shape traffic dont understand what eve is it might assume its P2P related and throttle it? A glasnost test should help there. But the package you are on should be Totally unlimited rather than just unlimited and was introduced from sometime around Feb last year I believe. If you are on an older contract you are probably being traffic shaped. Additionally its best to concentrate on Packet loss to servers rather than to routers. Backbone routers are often setup to depriorize icmp traffic directed to their own addresses except from servers used to manage them, concentrating on packet loss to intermediate devices is often a red herring.
There are various utilities out there that can test a tcp or UDP in a similar sort of way to ping, however the remote servers if they are protected by firewalls and IDP systems might detect that as an anomoly and block it as a possible attack.

I want to Prevent a specific URL through My Computer

I want to Prevent a specific URL through My Computer.No one can access any specific URL which i Block.
e.g http://www.yahoo.com
i want to block this specific site.Plz help me to block this site.

Uncheck the song. Use the option to sync only checked songs and videos. Sync.
tt2

RV320 - using one WAN port

What is the correct configuration for using one WAN port so that the router doesn't crash several times a day?
Should WAN2 be left as address from IP ?
Shoudl WAN2 be configured as static IP ?
Should WAN2 interface be disabled?
Should WAN2 be configured as DMZ and left as default 192.168.1.0?
Should WAN2 be configured as DMZ and then disabled?
It's definitely the router which is at fault, power cycling the fibre to copper converter dosen't fix the issue.
Nor does swapping the FTC for a brand new one.
Only a power cycle on the RV320, or a remote web interface reset if I'm unside the LAN, makes it work.
Temporarily, then it crashes next day.

I have the same settings, and the same up-to-date firmware.
I see in the logs that the router incorrectly reports WAN2 as Up, then can't sync rate with it.
Most of the time that failure is around the same time as the users report failure.
But nothing is logged for WAN1 so it doesn't seem to be a physical failure in cabling, or the FTC converter feeding the router.
2015-04-27, 10:33:35
Kernel
kernel: WAN [2] UP
2015-04-27, 10:33:35
Kernel
kernel: [eth0] lanip=192.168.1.1, mask=255.255.255.0
2015-04-27, 10:33:35
Kernel
kernel: ip[xxx.xxx.xx.xxx] mask[0.0.0.0]
2015-04-27, 10:33:35
Kernel
kernel: ip[0.0.0.0] mask[0.0.0.0]
2015-04-27, 10:33:36
Kernel
kernel: WAN [2] DOWN
2015-04-27, 10:42:10
Kernel
kernel: WARNING: cant get external phy status
2015-04-27, 10:42:11
Kernel
kernel: WARNING: no highest common denominator or auto-negotiation not complete
2015-04-27, 10:42:11
Kernel
kernel: WARNING: no highest common denominator or auto-negotiation not complete
2015-04-27, 10:58:01
Kernel
kernel: WARNING: no highest common denominator or auto-negotiation not complete
2015-04-27, 10:58:02
Kernel
last message repeated 2 times
2015-04-27, 10:58:02
Kernel
kernel: nk_bcm53115_sync_speeds_phy_to_mac(): sport[5], speed[0], duplex[0]
2015-04-27, 10:58:03
Kernel
kernel: nk_bcm53115_sync_speeds_phy_to_mac(): sport[5], speed[1], duplex[2]

RV320 - vlan on Wan Port

Here in Brazil VIVO (from the spanish Telefonica group) is recently providing fiber links.
Their fiber link is being splitted into 2 vlans: one for their IPTV (vlan id 20) and another for internet (vlan id 10).
So, when they install on your house or company, they install 2 boxes: 1 ONT (Optical Network Terminal) and 1 router (which connects to the ONT and does the PPPoE auth on VLAN 10 and creates the internal VLAN for the IPTV - id20).
So, is it possible to replace their router with the RV320 and create tagged / untagged VLAns on Wan Ports and assigning ip address on each vlan (PPPoE for internet, DHCP for iptv)?
The topology is basically like this:
[Fiber Cable]
ONT
[Ethernet Gigabit]
Router
[Ethernet / Coaxial]
Network Devices
TVs (coaxial connection provided by 2. Router)
PCs (wireless /ethernet connection provided by 2.Router)

Hello,
Thank you for sharing the information about the DD-WRT firmware on other devices.Unfortunately the RV320 is not capable of such a feature, it is just not designed to do that.
On the other hand we do have one unit that is capable of such configuration, it is the RV315W router.
Here is a link to the emulator for the unit so that you have an idea of its capabilities.
http://www.cisco.com/assets/sol/sb/RV315W_Emulators/RV315W_Emulator_v1.01.03/index.asp.htm
The feature you are looking for can be configured by going to Port settings, WAN, Wan interface settings, then you can configure the desired VLANs.
I'm not sure that this device is available in Brazil. If it is not available then you may have to consider using enterprise units or other devices.
Please let us know if this is helpful.

RV320, specific traffic through specific wan port

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for