DGL 4590 - Wireless

This is a discussion on DGL 4590 - Wireless ; Has anybody been able to loop back? Meaning go out of your router and come back in with your WAN IP ort to get to your IPCAM to see if it works from the WAN side? I can easily see ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: DGL 4590

  1. DGL 4590

    Has anybody been able to loop back? Meaning go out of your router and come
    back in with your WAN IPort to get to your IPCAM to see if it works from
    the WAN side? I can easily see the IPCAM with LAN side IP but not WANIPort.
    Port forwarding is set up properly

  2. Re: DGL 4590

    Hi
    Some Routers can do it,. most can Not. So if it is not working with your
    Router. It probably belongs to the Most can Not category.
    Jack (MS, MVP-Networking)

    "Random" wrote in message
    news:B57FDF1A-45D4-4D30-94CE-72D0E00F8ADF@microsoft.com...
    > Has anybody been able to loop back? Meaning go out of your router and come
    > back in with your WAN IPort to get to your IPCAM to see if it works from
    > the WAN side? I can easily see the IPCAM with LAN side IP but not
    > WANIPort.
    > Port forwarding is set up properly



  3. Re: DGL 4590

    Thanks Jack,
    I have worked on this for 3 weeks. I sure do find it hard to believe though.
    How can anyone verify connectivity to their IP cams or servers on their LAN
    from the WAN without this capability? I bought a high end router thinking it
    had such a basic capability.

    "Jack (MVP-Networking)." wrote:

    > Hi
    > Some Routers can do it,. most can Not. So if it is not working with your
    > Router. It probably belongs to the Most can Not category.
    > Jack (MS, MVP-Networking)
    >
    > "Random" wrote in message
    > news:B57FDF1A-45D4-4D30-94CE-72D0E00F8ADF@microsoft.com...
    > > Has anybody been able to loop back? Meaning go out of your router and come
    > > back in with your WAN IPort to get to your IPCAM to see if it works from
    > > the WAN side? I can easily see the IPCAM with LAN side IP but not
    > > WANIPort.
    > > Port forwarding is set up properly

    >
    >


  4. Re: DGL 4590


    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:01:01 -0700, Random
    wrote:

    >Has anybody been able to loop back? Meaning go out of your router and come
    >back in with your WAN IPort to get to your IPCAM to see if it works from
    >the WAN side? I can easily see the IPCAM with LAN side IP but not WANIPort.
    >Port forwarding is set up properly


    Assuming your router is capable of doing what you are attempting, you
    need to consider how the ipcam can reply to connections from your lan
    computer.

    If the IPCAM and PC are on the same lan subnet, the router's initial
    address translation and forwarding will work okay but replies will go
    directly from the IPCAM to PC bypassing the router which can't then do
    the required reverse translation.


    Jim.


  5. Re: DGL 4590

    Jim, thanks so much for reply. BTW: I meant DGL-4500.

    The IPCAM is 192.168.1.210 my PC is .200. I can get to the IPCAM using
    192.168.1.210 from my PC.
    I bought this 'more expensive' router mainly because I need the ability to
    readily assign an IP adrress to a MAC address. (Not just have the MAC address
    be able to get an IP from the pool I assigned as available. Needed for port
    forwarding.)
    But I remember with less expensive routers I've worked with I was able to
    enter my current WAN IP and port number and make it to the IPCAM. Without
    that capability I can't confirm that I can get to the IPCAM from the WAN.
    Everybody would have this same problem. This seems like such a basic required
    capability. How can anyone set up LAN side servers and confirm connectivity
    from the WAN? I can't imagine that we are expected to go to some other AP to
    see if connectivity works! I have to be missing something here!!!

    "James Egan" wrote:

    >
    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:01:01 -0700, Random
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Has anybody been able to loop back? Meaning go out of your router and come
    > >back in with your WAN IPort to get to your IPCAM to see if it works from
    > >the WAN side? I can easily see the IPCAM with LAN side IP but not WANIPort.
    > >Port forwarding is set up properly

    >
    > Assuming your router is capable of doing what you are attempting, you
    > need to consider how the ipcam can reply to connections from your lan
    > computer.
    >
    > If the IPCAM and PC are on the same lan subnet, the router's initial
    > address translation and forwarding will work okay but replies will go
    > directly from the IPCAM to PC bypassing the router which can't then do
    > the required reverse translation.
    >
    >
    > Jim.
    >
    >


  6. Re: DGL 4590


    On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:31:00 -0700, Random
    wrote:

    >The IPCAM is 192.168.1.210 my PC is .200. I can get to the IPCAM using
    >192.168.1.210 from my PC.
    >I bought this 'more expensive' router mainly because I need the ability to
    >readily assign an IP adrress to a MAC address. (Not just have the MAC address
    >be able to get an IP from the pool I assigned as available. Needed for port
    >forwarding.)
    >But I remember with less expensive routers I've worked with I was able to
    >enter my current WAN IP and port number and make it to the IPCAM. Without
    >that capability I can't confirm that I can get to the IPCAM from the WAN.
    >Everybody would have this same problem. This seems like such a basic required
    >capability. How can anyone set up LAN side servers and confirm connectivity
    >from the WAN? I can't imagine that we are expected to go to some other AP to
    >see if connectivity works! I have to be missing something here!!!


    It's not impossible. It's just harder than it appears initially.

    This link explains the problems and proposed solutions when using a
    BSD box as a router. Although you are using a dedicated router, the
    problems will be the same and the solutions or workarounds required
    will be similar.
    http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/rdr.html


    Jim.


+ Reply to Thread