RV082: How can you map a external port to a different internal port?

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by Dsnake, Sep 1, 2006.

  1. Dsnake

    Dsnake LI Guru Member

    OK i have a few question:
    On the RV082 (Firmware 1.3.2), how can you do this :
    Map port X from outside to port Y of internal IP Z

    If i'm corect the "Port Range Forwarding" can only map X from external to X in internal.

    And i'm not sure about what does the "Port Triggering" option, someone can enlight me a little?

    thanks ^^
  2. Dsnake

    Dsnake LI Guru Member

    UPnP seen to do this, but is this the right way to do it?
    In my mind UPnP was for application to create dynamic port maping on the fly... In my case it's more a static nat entry that i need
  3. d__l

    d__l Network Guru Member

    As best as I can determine from some some probe tests of a "Mapped port X from outside to port Y of internal IP Z" on the UPnP page is that the UPnP option does not need to be enabled for the port mapping to work and may be independent of the port mapping function on that GUI page.

    Linksys may have simply placed the controls for two different function on the same page because they didn't know where else to put the port mapping function.
  4. Dsnake

    Dsnake LI Guru Member

    I thinked about that, but it looked strange...

    So correct me if i'm wrong:
    Port Range Forwarding = Direct NAT of 1 or more port (X to X)
    UPnP = Direct NAT of 1 port (X to Y) and you don't have to enable "UPnP Function" to have it work

    And 2 more questions
    What does Port Triggering do then?
    What is the best if you want to map SMTP (25 external to 25 internal) Use "Port Range Forwarding" or "UPnP"?
  5. pablito

    pablito Network Guru Member

    Interesting. I just tested that and it works (I don't have a need for it but had to know...). You *do not* have to enable UPnP. Just create your service with the desired In/Out port and protocol. Add it with the desired internal destination and bingo.

    I haven't played with triggering but it should be more for internal apps that initiate the connection. Neither function seems to be dumb enough to allow a bounce out to a site on the WAN side (had to know that one too).

    Interesting question about which way is best for a forward... It seems they are almost the same thing but I don't know if it lays out the rules differently.
  6. Dsnake

    Dsnake LI Guru Member

    kind of strange no??
    lol i wonder what append if you map the port with both options @ the same time.. bug? or one erase the other?

    I agree with d__l it's probably just the contro who is placed on the wrong page, but it's really hard to figure without testing.

    My unit is not in prod atm i'm just preconfiguring it.
  7. pablito

    pablito Network Guru Member

    yes, a little goofy but it doesn't bother me too much. At least it can do the job. Just needed a little poking around.

    It is nice when you have the time for that... enjoy and run some scenarios before the deadline. The unit will do some tricks but it has a few irritating limits. The important ones will get fixed over time due to sensible discussion on sites like this one.
  8. Dsnake

    Dsnake LI Guru Member

    haha i agree about the "as long as he can do the job i don't care"

    Functionality seen fine atm. The beta firmware add some nice options but i'm a little afraid to use it on prod, i'll probably wait the final.
  9. d__l

    d__l Network Guru Member

    I think it has been common for Linksys to place PAT, port mapping, port X to Y, or what ever you want to call it on the UPnP page for their lower-priced routers. I've seen this on the SX41 with certain older firmwares, but then they stopped the practice on the latest firmware versions.

    The biggest problem I could see with using 1.3.2 is the firmware's blocking of selective ACKs. That is a speed killer on cable and it can affect DSL speeds if the computer's receive Window is set to be too large.
  10. Dsnake

    Dsnake LI Guru Member

    hum and you think the beta is stable enough? I mean no major problem fond on it?
  11. d__l

    d__l Network Guru Member

    I don't think anyone has complained about router crashes and most of the complaints have been about minor problems that may even be present in 1.3.2. Read over the thread about the beta: http://www.linksysinfo.org/portal/forums/showthread.php?t=47478 and see what you think.

    You could probably load and run the beta. If there is a problem with it, you could restart the router with 1.3.2 as the backup firmware version on the Restart page. Of course you would lose your settings by going backwards in firmware versions because the router reverts to factory defaults when you do that.

    I don't know if you can restore your settings with a configuration file when going back to an older firmware version.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice