Previous Thread
I'm having issues with the SMC7004VWBR. I just updated my firmware which is what i would recommend to you. I grabbed the latest version from SMC......to no avail yet, but the settings needed for all this are added in the upgrade.
Is anyone successfully using their slingbox with a Cisco 678 DSL router and and SMC7004AWBR wireless router?
Setting up a slingbox AV I can see it on the internal network, but not external. I attempted a chat w/ slingbox support, but didn't get very far when I couldn't access the settings in my Cisco 678.
After ending the chat, I found how to telnet in to the Cisco and I think I set the right command to forward the port. I used:
- set nat entry add 10.0.0.2 5001 tcp
- set nat entry add 10.0.0.2 5001 udp
In the SMC web setup, I went in to "virtual server" and added an entry with the IP address of the slingbox (just needed last 3 digits), port 5001, checked the 'enable' box. There was not a setting to select tcp or udp. Both the Cisco and SMC were rebooted for the changes to take.
Still no success. Am I missing something? Is my hardware incompatible? I'd consider buying a new wireless router, but if the problem is with the Cisco I don't want to waste the money.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
-Mark
June 13, 2007 11:37 AM
Well the OP issue is he is behind a double nat to start with.. Its freaking pointless to setup a network like that.
He has cisco router -- if he wants to add wireless to his network, then he just needs an access point. Every wireless router can be just used as an access point. Turn off its dhcp server, set its lan interface IP to be on the 1st routers network - and connect from the first router to the wireless ones lan port vs using the wan port of the wireless router.
Shazam access point.. Now all port forwarding will be controlled by the 1st nat device. In this case the cisco.
Please post the model number of the device your smc70004 connects too.
If you having issues with port forwarding - it could be a good bet your behind a double nat.
June 13, 2007 1:01 PM
The problem is not the double NATting, the problem is doing it right.
I am on a box on a 192.168.0.0/24 network right now, same as my sling. It's is "behind" a 192.168.1.0/24 net, which itself is behind a 192.168.102.0/24 net.
My sling, as well as a couple mail servers and one web server, are visible from the world without any problems. So, it can be done, as long as one sits down and trys to understand what's actually going on.
"Good behavior is the last refuge of mediocrity." - Henry S. Haskins
June 13, 2007 1:06 PM
My problem ended up being the firmware/cbos on the cisco router. I was doing things right, but after every reboot the nat changes I made on the cisco were being lost.
I updated the firmware/cbos on the cisco 678 and now all is working perfectly.
June 13, 2007 1:19 PM
I'm not using any Cisco router...just the SMC router. I was hoping for some advice on how folks may have resolved issues with the slingbox and the SMC 7004VWBR. Any help would be appreciated. I have upgraded the firmware to the latest that SMC offers. i have set it up to have port 5001 forwarded to the IP that has been assigned to my slingbox by my SMC router.
June 13, 2007 1:25 PM
One thing to check on the SMC.... I initially was using the default IP address the sling software suggested (ended in .256 I think).
However, there was a screen in the SMC that set the valid range of IP addresses, and it was set at 199 for the top end, so the .256 address wasn't right.
I had to set the slingbox IP to something less than 199.
Unfortunately that's the only suggestion I've got.....
June 13, 2007 10:42 PM
Hi mickeymouse. your suggestion is appreciated. that needed to be looked at for sure. Unfortunately I'm still having no luck. I have lowered the IP address to be within range of what the router will provide. i have tried numerous port numbers.....still can't get to it from the outside. Just strange.
June 14, 2007 7:53 AM
Well for starters it impossible to have an IP that ends in .256, for that matter its impossible to have a 256 number anywhere in a IPv4 address. - valid numbers are 0-255
I see from the other thread josborne you have a voip in the mix, I answered your issue in the other thread.
As to "doing it right" - with a freaking triple nat? Yeah even though it is possible to forward thru that type of mess.. I sure an the F would not call setup like that anywhere close to "doing it right" ;)
If I was going to describe that to someone -- it would start with Cluster, an end with a word starting with the letter F..
If you really had some understanding of what was going on you would correct that "MESS" -- it's utterly pointless to work with something like that! There sure can not be a valid reason to set it up that way.. just a lack of basic understanding is all.
June 14, 2007 11:44 AM
"If you really had some understanding of what was going on you would correct that "MESS" -- it's utterly pointless to work with something like that! There sure can not be a valid reason to set it up that way.. just a lack of basic understanding is all."
"doing it right" = "doing NAT right" just in case you missed that. :-)
Talking about understanding ... no offence, but, I think I have a better understanding of my networking needs and wants than you do. No, I don't really feel like explaining, but, believe it or not, there ARE people out here that have needs that can't be met with just a plain old /24. Not with consumer level routers, anyway.
Anyhow, my point to the OP was that the number of NATs is not really relevant, as one can work with them if one tryis to figure out what's going on. It's not magic. Really. Seriously. (Those chicken bones on console in the rack are ... from lunch. Yeah, that's the ticket, they are from lunch.)
"Good behavior is the last refuge of mediocrity." - Henry S. Haskins
June 14, 2007 5:32 PM
Who said anything about plain ole /24..
An what the F does that have to do with double natting? As to who has a better understanding of your network -- To be honest I really doubt that its you! ;)
Since those are all common default IP ranges.. 102 for one being the default IP of a Motorola VT1005, etc.
It seems that you plugged in voip box a router and then daisy changed another router off of it, etc.. vs actually doing it the right way!
I agree there are many reason why you might need to run multiple segments or a different network vs 24 bit. Who said anything different.
You state "behind" this network which is "behind" this network - this clearly states NAT.. Which is utterly pointless to run more than one in any type of HOME setup..
If you want/need to segment out or Vlan to isolate networks - then fine do so, most every soho router on the market allows for routing vs nat. As to vlan's - any router that supports 3rd party firmware can do this. openwrt, dd-wrt support vlans for all the interfaces.
If you have some off the wall reason why you think natting between 3 different network address spaces makes sense - more power to you. But it surely is not anywhere close to "doing it right".
Nor would I suggest that someone without networking exp be expected to work thru that type of messs for a simple port forward. Or for that matter to allow their machines to talk even simple file sharing, etc.
June 14, 2007 6:07 PM
I am not sure why I bother, but, let me try again "doing it right" = "doing NAT right". It is in NO WAY related to doing networking right.
As for the rest of the stuff ... it's getting more and more off topic, and, as I said, I am quite sure I know better what my networking needs and wants are. (Hint, some of us have kind, but clueless, neighbours who are only too happy to share their bandwidth - whether they know it or not. )
That's all on this from me.
"Good behavior is the last refuge of mediocrity." - Henry S. Haskins
June 17, 2007 10:00 PM
Um -- sorry but "doing it right" does not freaking = 3 freaking NAT's!! Period end of Story!
An sorry, but stealing your next door bandwidth is not a legit reason to be behind a double nat.. Since the only way to make a forward work in that type of setup would be if you had control over the first nat.
Let say that was the case -- how does that in any way shape or form related to the OP or the topic in the first place? Or any type of normal setup -- so you steal bandwidth from your next door network.. How does that relate to the rest of the planet that pays for theirs?
Like I said -- yes it is possible to forward thru multiple nats, it is just nonsense to even bring it up in this type of forum, since no one here would be wanting to do such a thing.. The reason they are here, is the double nat is causing them issues.. Lets show them how to correct their networking faux pas vs stating that "you" know how to work thru it -- an that they should look how to as well.. No normal "HOME" network should ever have a legit reason to ever have more than 1 nat - PERIOD!!
Even if there was some legit reason to do it, anyone that would need/want to do such a thing on purpose would have no reason to be asking questions on this or any other forum.. Since they would understand what they are doing.
Add Your Reply
Sponsored Links
Copyright © 2008
Capable Networks LLC.. All Rights Reserved.
RSS |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise With Us |
Terms of Use |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Site Map
Our Capable Community Network:
Drobo Space |
DVR playground |
MediaSmart Home |
Monster Community |
MotoDash |
My DigitalEntertainer |
My Open Router |
Presto Place |
Robo Community |
Sansa Community |
Sling Community |
TechLore |
TiVo Community |
TouchSmart Community
Slingbox™ is a trademark of Sling Media, Inc. SlingCommunity.com is not affiliated with Sling Media, Inc.
