Port Forwarding won't work on new Hub

[Zalosath]

Hi,

 

I'm with Sky and we recently upgraded our internet package and they provided a new router to support these new speeds.

 

Previously, port forwarding worked fine, I could open ports and host games to play with friends, but the new router has a totally different layout and really does not entertain the idea, I've set up (afaik) everything correctly, see attached files for more info. 

 

Canyouseeme doesn't see the port.

Tried disabling PC firewall.

 

Setting up static LAN IP for my system

 

Adding service to Services, specifying ports to open & protocols to accept

 

Adding ports and LAN IP to inbound & outbound rules

 

Ignore red sections, they are tests that I ran that equally did not work.

 

I think the major difference between my previous router and my new one is that it uses IPv6, but I don't see how that would totally disable IPv4.

 

Any ideas? Thanks.

[Alex Atkin UK]

9 hours ago, Zalosath said:

I think the major difference between my previous router and my new one is that it uses IPv6, but I don't see how that would totally disable IPv4.

Looks good, although you shouldn't need any outbound service as that is connections OUT of the LAN and allows everything by default.

 

Not sure how it works on this router, but usually you'll specify the same ports for WAN and LAN on a port forward.  Its all a bit confusing what it even means by WAN servers, looking at guides on Google it sounds like it actually means the opposite - WAN clients, as in who it lets in.  Why they can't use correct terminology I do not know.

 

Just as a check, does the router mention your WAN IP address anywwhere?  What are the first two numbers?

 

I haven't heard of Sky using CG-NAT but you never know, so its worth checking its giving you a real public WAN IP.

[Zalosath]

2 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Looks good, although you shouldn't need any outbound service as that is connections OUT of the LAN and allows everything by default.

 

Not sure how it works on this router, but usually you'll specify the same ports for WAN and LAN on a port forward.  Its all a bit confusing what it even means by WAN servers, looking at guides on Google it sounds like it actually means the opposite - WAN clients, as in who it lets in.  Why they can't use correct terminology I do not know.

 

Just as a check, does the router mention your WAN IP address anywwhere?  What are the first two numbers?

 

I haven't heard of Sky using CG-NAT but you never know, so its worth checking its giving you a real public WAN IP.

Ah cool, you're right. Deleted the outbound one.

 

For the port forward, I can't change the WAN port.

 

No mention of WAN IP address, but it does specify an IPv4 address which is reflected by what's my ip. It's worth noting that when typing "What's my ip" into Google, it gives me an IPv6 address, is that a problem? First two numbers are 94.0

 

After a quick google, I should hope that it's not using CG-NAT but rural sky customers have complained about having it. If that were the case how would I begin checking that?

 

I used an external website to ping my IP and worked just fine. (not the port though)

 

EDIT: Alright.. adding to the pot, opening port 25565 and running a Minecraft server can be seen by canyouseeme. I suppose that's hope that it will work but on the other hand what's the issue with 24554

[Zalosath]

Solution is trivial and stupid.

Port checker was not working, I tried 3 different ones and it seems like they all look for some kind of header to pull to verify the port is open, for game servers and the like, especially for games under development (like mine), they won't have this header file and thus will fail the port check.

 

Actually testing the connection with another device is a much more fool proof way and I will not be using a port checker again.

[Alex Atkin UK]

10 hours ago, Zalosath said:

Solution is trivial and stupid.

Port checker was not working, I tried 3 different ones and it seems like they all look for some kind of header to pull to verify the port is open, for game servers and the like, especially for games under development (like mine), they won't have this header file and thus will fail the port check.

 

Actually testing the connection with another device is a much more fool proof way and I will not be using a port checker again.

Ah yes, a good port checker should let you specify the ports, by default they will scan "common ports" or even just everything under 1024.  They're mainly focused on scanning the common attack vectors, than stuff you are intentionally opening up.

 

I really should have thought to ask if you were sure it was scanning that port in the first place.

[Zalosath]

2 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Ah yes, a good port checker should let you specify the ports, by default they will scan "common ports" or even just everything under 1024.  They're mainly focused on scanning the common attack vectors, than stuff you are intentionally opening up.

 

I really should have thought to ask if you were sure it was scanning that port in the first place.

I did actually scan the desired port, which makes things even worse on the websites behalf. I don't know the precise reason that it failed for my game server but it worked just fine for Minecraft, so I guess it wanted some specific reply that my server wasn't providing. Strange! I wonder exactly how these websites decide if the port is open.

[Alex Atkin UK]

8 minutes ago, Zalosath said:

I did actually scan the desired port, which makes things even worse on the websites behalf. I don't know the precise reason that it failed for my game server but it worked just fine for Minecraft, so I guess it wanted some specific reply that my server wasn't providing. Strange! I wonder exactly how these websites decide if the port is open.

From what I understand, with TCP it will simply connect and expect a response.  With UDP presumably it sends random data and expect some sort of error response.

 

I guess if you've written the game to only respond to valid request, its going to fail the test.