Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 28 subscribers
  • Views 8713 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Port Forward, tried everything, need help

l0rdraiden

 

Why the host subnet is 255.255.255.255? I can't change it and I am using 255.255.255.0, it's fine? does it matter?

I get an error when I check the port here and the app being forwarded doesnt' work well.

https://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/ 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    It was an issue with Docker, don't ask my why but I don't have this problem with other containers with a similar network configuration.

     

    I just want to  be sure if I have to enable masquerading aswell in the port forwarding rules, can anyone confirm this?

Reply
  • 0

    It was an issue with Docker, don't ask my why but I don't have this problem with other containers with a similar network configuration.

     

    I just want to  be sure if I have to enable masquerading aswell in the port forwarding rules, can anyone confirm this?

Children
  • 0 in reply to l0rdraiden

    OK, first thing, sorry for misleading on the port specification thing. Turns out that XG will look at the services you designate and then automatically use those ports for listening and forwarding. In an odd quirk, you can only change the mapped ports (say, listen on 80 and forward to 4000) if the selected service has a single protocol/port value. So, in your case having both TCP and UDP ports prevents you from overriding their mapping. But, as I learned, specifying those ports isn't necessary in the first place.

    Anyway, I do not believe you need to masq the inbound connection as long as your internal server has access back out to the WAN. If your internal server can only talk to the XG, then masq would be needed.