RV325 dual wan port forwarding

RV325 firmware v1.1.1.19
Each WAN has 1 static IP
Can I forward different ports from WAN1 to different internal IP's?
The manual says there should be "interface" selection but the on port forward config but all I have is "service", "IP" and "status".
What I am trying to do is:
WAN1:80 --> internal 10.0.0.101:80
WAN1:10000 --> internal 10.0.0.162:10000
WAN2:80 --> internal 10.0.0.102:80
WAN2:10000 --> internal 10.0.0.253:10000

What mpyhala posted is correct. Under the access rules you are actually able to select an interface.
Unfortunately, it won't help you in regards to the port forwarding configuration you are trying to setup.
On this router, you open the ports using port forwarding. You can configure access rules and select the right interface but it will not open any ports.

Similar Messages

LRT224 - Dual WAN port forwarding

Can you forward say port 80 from WAN 1 to IP and port 80 from WAN 2 to a different IP.?
Also can you somehow select TCP & UDP instead off just one or the other?
I just replaced 2 TPLink routers with LRT 214 & LRT 224 its all working well. Except the port forwarding
Solved!
Go to Solution.

With LRT224, a port forwarding rule is applied to both WAN ports, and two rules are required if you want to forward TCP and UDP to the same internal IP.

RV325 Dual WAN Router - Use only one IP

I have a rv325 dual wan router. I have setup load balancing on the router, but I don't want one of the servers here being load balanced. How do i set it to only use a specific WAN while everything else is load balanced?

Michael,
I like to share link that will has a step by step screenshots on how to configure protocol binding. Your source ip will be server and Destination is whichever WAN you are shaping that traffic. Hope this helps
Article ID: 4242
http://sbkb.cisco.com

Airport Extreme Simultaneous Dual-Band port forwarding broken if only TCP ports with firmware 7.6.1

When configuring my Airport Extreme Simultaneous Dual-Band router, port forwarding is broken if you only specify TCP ports to forward. This is with firmware 7.6.1. What happens is that after you hit the Update button, when the router comes back and you open the port forwarding entry, the IP is still there but the port numbers are missing.
I tried all different port numbers and ranges and nothing would stick if i only specified TCP ports. If i added UDP ports with the TCP ports then it would save them. And if you add a new entry with only UDP it saves them too.
Now this is with adding a new port forwarding. I already have existing ports being forwarded that only have TCP. They are still working. I believe i added them with a previous version of the firmware.
Any one else see this issue? Any ideas?
Maybe i should perform a hard reset and reload a saved config.
Peace,
Dan

I haven't seen the issue but you could just downgrade to an earlier firmware:

LRT224 and Spotify/port forwarding on dual WAN set-up.

Very pleased with the LRT224, which was easy to set up (dual WAN, one cable modem, one VDSL). I'm using it for a small home-based business with several PC's, and it's worked a dream in the load-balancing mode. My request is beyond my current technical knowledge, however: we have Spotify on one PC for "background entertainment". It's a total bandwidth-hog, so I'd like to set it up to use the slower of the two WANs (VDSL) only. I'm something of a newbie to the techniques of port forwarding, so I'd be really grateful if someone could describe the steps to bond all Spotify inbound/outbound traffic to WAN2. Is this even possible...? Thanks in advance - Steve

You can define a specific IP addresses or specific application service ports to go through a user-assigned WAN for external connections via Protocol Binding. Just bind the MAC address of your device to an IP address to properly route traffic to the specific device by IP and MAC binding.

SRP547W, How to use multiple WAN IPs for port forwarding?

Hi folks,
We've run into some difficulty trying to take advantage of multiple WAN IPs in conjunction with the SRP547, and I'm hoping someone here can help out or at least tell us that we're going to need to buy a different router...
What we're trying to acheive is the ability to port forward from our distinct public IPs to different internal servers. Looking at the options under Port Forwarding it looks like we can only configure forwards at the "WAN interface" level, but our problem is that we can't work out how to set up separate interfaces for each of our Public IPs...
Our ISP provides us with a fully managed NTU/router with a single "Internet" ethernet port, which we can use by statically configuring IPs on our end. For this configuration this port has been directly patched to the WAN ethernet port on the SRP547W.
We have been allocated a 255.255.255.248 (/29) subnet, giving us 5 usable IPs after the ISP's gateway address is taken into account, like so:
a.b.c.208     Network Address (/29 subnet)
a.b.c.209     ISP Gateway
a.b.c.210     IP1
a.b.c.211     IP2
a.b.c.212     IP3
a.b.c.213     IP4
a.b.c.214     IP5
a.b.c.215     Broadcast Address
On the SRP we've set up the default "Ethernet WAN2" sub-interface with the following details for IP1
VLAN ID:               4088 (Uneditable)
Connection Type:       Static IP
Internet IP Address:   a.b.c.210
Subnet Mask:           255.255.255.248
Default Gateway:       a.b.c.209
The next step (I would have thought) would be to add a second sub-interface, using similar info for IP2
VLAN ID:               4000 (Chosen arbitrarily)
Connection Type:       Static IP
Internet IP Address:   a.b.c.211
Subnet Mask:           255.255.255.248
Default Gateway:       a.b.c.209
When we try to do so however we get:
Fail!
Conflict with Ether_WAN2 interface address type
I should mention at this point that we're running on firmware version 1.02.01 (023).
Any suggestions on how we can proceed?
Is there a CLI or other method of configuration that might work if the web interface won't?
Thanks,
Tim.

OK, I've seen reference to this solution before but not much in the way of details. Perhaps you can spell out how this ought to work, as the Software DMZ doesn't behave as I'd expected it to.
As before, on the SRP we've set up the default "Ethernet WAN2" sub-interface with the details for IP1 with a /29 subnet.
VLAN ID:               4088 (Uneditable)
Connection Type:       Static IP
Internet IP Address:   a.b.c.210
Subnet Mask:           255.255.255.248
Default Gateway:       a.b.c.209
We'd now like to expose a server function on IP2, let's say LAN details for this server are:
VLAN:                  3000
VLAN IP Range:         192.168.1.1/24
Server IP:             192.168.1.10
Server Port:           80
So first we turn on Software DMZ:
Status:                Enabled
Public IP:             a.b.c.211
Private IP:            192.168.1.10
WAN Interface:         Ether_WAN2
My understanding, based on what you've said, is that this should expose the whole server to external access via IP2. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work this way - we don't seem to have any access at all. Perhaps there's a default deny rule on the firewall?
Just to be sure, I tried creating a rule to allow HTTP traffic to the server in the Advanced Firewall page.
In Interface (WAN):    All
Out Interface (LAN):   VLAN.3000
Source IP:             0.0.0.0
Source Subnet:         0.0.0.0
Destination IP:        192.168.1.10
Destination Subnet:    255.255.255.255
Protocol:              TCP
Source Port:           Any
Destination Port:      Single:80
Action:                Permit
Schedule:              Everyday
Times:                 24 Hours
Still no dice. What am I missing?
Cheers,
Tim.

Dual Wan and port routing

Hi,
I am setting up a configuration with SA520W and 2 Wan, in load balancing. But I face a problem that I could not understand.
Traffic is HTTP, SIP and 2 servers.
Servers are for a VPN tunnel and a mail server with ActiveSync
Both services absolutely need port 443 on the external IP, and that's one of the dual wan reason.
The 2 wan are running, load balancing mode is enable and NAt routing in firewall tab as follow :
443 Enabled     WAN     LAN     ALU_OpenVPN     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.150     WAN1     Always
443   Enabled     WAN     LAN     ActiveSync     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.254     WAN2     Always
If load balanced
Port 443 is NOT routed from wan1 to 192.168.0.150
Port 443 is routed from wan2 to 192.168.0.254
If only WAN 1
Port 443 is routed from wan1 to 192.168.0.150
If only WAN 2
Port 443 is routed from wan2 to 192.168.0.254
In fact I did other testing and no port routing with WAN1 when load balancing is enable, even on port that is not used at all on Wan2.
With a FTP filezilla server, it's OK if on wan2, and it stop before logging if on a wan1 (on laod balancing, ok on both case if only one wan)
Firmware : latest 2.1.18
Any Clue ??

Hello,
I confirm, there is a strange behaviour.
Simple test :
Dual Wan configured.
A FTP server on the LAN (192.168.0.254) port 21
Firewall , ipv4 config :
WAN   to   LAN     FTP     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.254     WAN1
WAN   to   LAN     FTP     ALLOW always     Any         192.168.0.254     WAN2
Then some testing using a FTP client outside the LAN, connection from Internet.
Then, changing ONLY the Wan Mode :
1/ Use only single WAN port : Dedicated WAN
==> FTP connect through WAN1
2/ Use only single WAN port : Optional WAN
==>FTP connect through WAN2
3/ Load Balancing
==>FTP connect through WAN1
==>FTP DO NOT connect through WAN1
Is that a bug or do I have some strange stuff somewhere ?
I will pick up another SA520W from stock, brand new, update the firmware, configure the 2 WAN (invering the 2 provider just in case) and do the same test.

NAT port-forwarding and WAN side IP addresses

I have my Airport Extreme setup to forward port 21 to an FTP server on the LAN side of my network. The AE is connected via DSL to my ISP.
When a client from the WAN side connects to my server, the server's LOGS don't list the IP of the client, rather it says the client connected from my assigned WAN IP. For example (fake ip's):
Client ----> AE ----> FTP-SERVER
130.129.12.3 76.99.89.3 10.0.1.2
Log states client connected
from IP: 76.99.89.3
My previous Linksys router, with the same DSL modem and ISP, would report the client as connecting from 130.129.12.3.
Am I missing something in how I am configureing my AE? Or, is this how the AE manages port-forwarding and there's nothing I can do about it?
I used to use firewall rules to control access to the FTP server, i.e. rules set on the server. This can't be done anymore with the AE operating as it does.

Seems to me that the NAT translation in the Airport 802.11n is such that it does not use the incoming IP of clients connecting from the WAN side to a computer on the LAN side. The ingoing and outgoing packets reach their respective destinations, it is just that the AE uses some kind of non-standard routing (at least not that I am used to working with).
This is bad because it prevents the use of some forms of access controls on BSD and Linux servers on the LAN side, TCP Wrappers and iptables for example. This can create obvious security problems when WAN ports are set to forward to such a LAN client. We are already getting hit with robot-like script attacks on our server, this was a problem with our Linksys router, but with the above mentioned tools and scripts we were able to block abusive clients.
Perhaps an Apple can work on resolving this issue in a future firmware release, at least make it an option... Anyone from Apple out there?
jmj

RV016 port forwarding by WAN port?

Hi,
I am replacing an ancient SOHO 90 series router with our new RV016, I was told this thing would do everything we needed which I didn't doubt, however, I am wondering if I made the wrong choice now. We have 5 IP's on one line coming into the current router, that isn't an issue, if needed I can make 5 seperate drops with each IP, but, now we have several servers hosting services on the same ports. For example 5.2 host a web server which is called to by the .250 address, 5.3 has one as well from .251, we have one on each of the 5, there are other servers too though on each of the 5 using the same ports. When I go to port forwarding the only option is to forward the single port to a single server, can I not forward ports from each WAN connection to a different server? Any help would be appreciated.
Here is a short sample from the old soho of what I want to do
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.5 443 *.*.*.250 443 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.6 443 *.*.*.251 443 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.5 80 *.*.*.250 80 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.6 80 *.*.*.251 80 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.22 80 *.252 80 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.22 443 *.252 443 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.96 6437 *.251 6437 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.96 6438 *.251 6438 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.96 6439 *.251 6439 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.93 7437 *.251 7437 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.93 7438 *.251 7438 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.93 7439 *.251 7439 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.101 8437 *.251 8437 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.101 8438 *.251 8438 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.101 8439 *.251 8439 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.90 9437 *.251 9437 extendable
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.5.90 9438 *.251 9438 extendable

The multi-WAN feature of RV016 is designed for redundancy and load balancing, so basic port forwarding is not tied to a specific WAN port. If a LAN server is exposed to the internet by the 1-to-1 NAT feature of RV016, the server can be accessed by a specified public IP address.

RV180W loses port forwarding rules when switching WAN connections

We have a backup WAN connection in our office, but we switch this connection manually on our RV180W when the primary goes down. Our normal connection is ADSL with PPPoE, and the backup is Cable with DHCP.
However, we also have some port forwarding rules for our VoIP PBX (UDP port 5060) as well as SSH, and these rules seem to stop working completely when we switch our WAN connection to our cable connection. We can still surf the web from our workstations, but our incoming phone calls and SSH connections all cease to work completely. The problem does not persist after we've switched back to our normal ADSL connection.
This behaviour is completely bizarre and suggests that there's some kind of bug in the Cisco RV180W.

helm,
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear which IP address renewal I am speaking about.
I believe that the problem is caused when the router renews the WHS's local IP address (192.168...). My WAN IP address remains unchanged througout the tests I performed and the problems I experienced.
The very act of changing the local clients' lease time in the router's configuration causes the forwarding to be lost immediately. (I am gusessing that when the lease time is changed, the router immediately renews the lease and begins a new countdown.)
(In fact, I might go as far as to say it is a bug in the firmware, but I haven't done enough testing to nail it down.)

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?

LRT224 Dual Wan - Opening up Ports

Hello,
I am installing a new VoIP system on our network and the company advises us that we need to open UDP Ports 10000-60000 and TCP port 80 and 443. I believe TCP Ports 80 and 443 are already open according to the test I have run but I need to open the UDP Ports.
Can anyone advise me how to do this? We have roughly 8 computers on the network and I need to open the ports for all computers.
Thanks

That sound right.
In your One to One Nat set your Private Range Begin to something like 192.168.1.50 and the Range Length to number of phones. Remember that you don't include IP addresses in use by WAN ports in Public Range Begin.
Use IP & MAC binding to assign the IP addresses to the workstations.
In this case you might not have to open ports because of the One to One NAT I'm not sure.
Please remember to Kudo those that help you.
Linksys
Communities Technical Support

VPN and a Dual Wan router confusion

I am running a Border Manager 3.9 server with a Dual Wan router supplying the 2 ISPs load balancing to a single NIC on the Border Manager Server. I want to try setting up a VPN.
Whats the easiest most pain free way of doing this?
Just wondering,
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, Rlmillies wrote:
> Whats the easiest most pain free way of doing this?
>
Hah! Well, inbound traffic in general can be problematical on a
dual-wan system.
Here you have two issues, if the router is like ones I've worked on.
First, load balancing. You can't (probably - this is based on my
experience) set up a static NAT of one of the public IP addresses to
the BM 'public' address and still load balance. My experience is that
as soon as you do that, it forces both inbound and outbound traffic
onto that particular WAN link, so it kills load balancing/failover.
Which means you need to do port forwarding on the router for all the
VPN ports. You will need TCP and UPD 353, and UPD 500 and 4500 inbound
(and replies outbound). If using a site-site VPN, you also need TCP
213 inbound.
You will have to configure the VPN address in BMgr to use one of the
WAN public IP's. The VPN will only work on that one WAN link.
Craig Johnson
Novell Support Connection SysOp
*** For a current patch list, tips, handy files and books on
BorderManager, go to http://www.craigjconsulting.com ***

Trend Micro Dual WAN Issue

Question from a partner:
Has Trend fixed the hosted issue with two WAN connections? It used to be that even though your device had dual WANs, Trend would only forward the emails to one of the connections. If it went down, you had to submit an email request to move it to the other connection and it could be 12-24 hours before it went into effect and 99 times out of 100, the original WAN port would be back online. It does slightly defeat the purpose of having Dual WANs if you cannot receive email in this day and age.
Any help out there?
Art

I got with Trend on this because I thought it was something very interesting....
here is what they said...
I think you’re talking about the same setup as a customer having 2 mail servers, right? If so we have had a solution for this for a while.
They want us to send email to 1.1.1.1, but if that is down, send it to 2.2.2.2.
They would use the MX record method.
A customer would need to create a hostname that points to two MX records.
Give the primary site IN MX 10 and the backup IN MX 20.
Then we change the IMHS configuration to use the hostname they created.
>cat imhs.multiple.customer.mailservers
Hello,
Our postfix servers will only allow us to configure 1 IP address or 1 hostname in our transport file to deliver email back to the customer. If the customer has 2 or more mail servers they want us to use, they will need to create a new hostname DNS entry and point it to their multiple servers.
If they want our servers to try to deliver the email to their mail servers in a specific order, say mailserver1 and if that server is not available then try to deliver the email to the mailserver2, then they would need to setup the following DNS entries as an example:
mailserver1.customerdomain.com.    IN A 1.2.3.4
mailserver2.customerdomain.com.    IN A 2.3.4.5
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN MX 10 mailserver1.customerdomain.com.
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN MX 20 mailserver2.customerdomain.com.
Then we setup our server to deliver to imhs.customerdomain.com.
customerdomain.com     smtp:imhs.customerdomain.com:25
If a specific order is not important then they can just make imhs.customerdomain.com point to multiple IP addresses:
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN A 1.2.3.4
imhs.customerdomain.com.   IN A 1.2.3.5
This will make our server send an email to 1.2.3.4 and the next email to 1.2.3.5, then to 1.2.3.4, etc.
Then we setup our server to deliver to imhs.customerdomain.com.
customerdomain.com     smtp:[imhs.customerdomain.com]:25
Our servers will only deliver the email to the first server that will accept the email. They will not deliver the same email to both mail servers.
I hope that is detail enough,
Regards,
Nosa

New Customer Experience with Port Forwarding

OK, so my OpenReach Modem and HomeHub 3 were installed last week and all seemed OK at first.
A bit of background:
I'm a seasoned IT guy and have a nice network set up at home that caters for my needs (most of the time).
Without going into too much detail, I have my own DHCP/DNS server and I run a Webserver for personal use.
I have Virgin Broadband - which work most of the time.
I've also just had BT Infinity installed so I should always have Internet access no matter which ISP is having issues.
I was hoping to be able to access my webserver externally from either my BT or Virgin. I didn't think this would be an issue.
It still all works fine through my Virgin connection. I use dynamic DNS (no-ip.org) to get to my server.
On the Virgin Superhub - I have DHCP switched off and all my machines (except one at the moment) get the Virgin router assigned as the Internet gateway (via my own DHCP server).
My test machine gets a the BT HomeHub 3 assigned as the Internet gateway (also from my own DHCP server) and I have switched off DHCP on Home Hub.
Before I move onto my issue, I have to say that the above network setup works flawlessly.
The Virgin Router is on 192.168.0.1, The Home Hub is on 192.168.0.2. (subnet 255.255.255.0)
They are on the same network but because DHCP it switched off on both routers - everything is happy.
I can access my Server from the Internet via my no-ip.org address and it all works great.
The issue:
I thought it would be relatively simple to configure the BT Home Hub 3 to access my server from the Internet.
Hmmm. Port Forwarding seems to be the issue. It just doesn't work reliably enough. Sometimes it works, then sometime it stops working. Right now it's not working.
At first I though it was just me, not configuring it correctly. But no.
Then I started reading this forum and found there are reports of issues with port forwarding going back a year.
I don't know if that a good or bad thing - an issue running that long must be on the verge of getting fixed right?
Or any issue running that long without resolution probably has no simple resolution or just isn't a priority (for BT) maybe.
My Question:
(and I think I already know the answer)
Has anyone got a sure fire way of configuring the HomeHub3 so the port forwarding works?
Or should I just throw in the towel now and buy a Dual Wan Router?
One last note:
This morning my Infinity Broadband Speed dropped from
38Mb down/6Mb Up (measured several times yesterday)
to
0.7Mb down/0.3Mb Up (yes those decimal points are in the right place)
And I haven't got a clue why.
I power cycled the HomeHub and it returned to normal. Does this happen to other people?
Cheers
Graeme.
Graeme

Bullitt wrote:
the port on your network is defined by lan ip address and port number eg 192.168.1.10:80
you cannot forward this outbound port twice
There is no "port on my network" A port is associated with a IP address not a network.
My webserver listens an port 80 - requests from the Internet for http are port forwarded by the router (either BT Homehub or Virgin Superhub) to port 80 at address 192.168.0.5 (in my case).
If I am trying to access my webserver from the Internet, I point my browser at the WAN IP address of my router (again it doesn't matter which one - BT or Virgin) and the router port forwards the request to my Webserver. Each router can do this independently.
"you cannot forward this outbound port twice"
As explained above - It's an inbound port not an outbound port.
I appreciate you are trying to be helpful but just telling me something is not possible without explaining why its not possible doesn't really help me.
As I said before, this was working fine, then it stopped working but only when trying to access my webserver via the BT Router. It still works fine from my Virgin Router. I used WireShark and port mirroring on my switch to prove that the Home Hub as stopped port forwarding inbound traffic to my webserver.
This is a problem with port forwarding on the Homehub, not my network setup. Looking at other posts on this forum - I'd suggest I'm not the only one having problems.
To be honest, it's the least of my problems with the HomeHub right now. I'm far more concerned with the fact that twice today I've had to power cycle it because the throughput has dropped from 38Mbit-down/6Mbit-up to <1Mbit-down/<1Mbit-up. It's a known problem, BT are working on it, yet I still am paying full price for a product that should never had made it out of Beta test.
Graeme

RV325 dual wan port forwarding

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for