NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Nighthawk M2 MR2100 features and availability
Does MR2100 have dynamic DNS support, sorely lacking in MR1100? I'm interested in using it as a primary home internet solution and want to know if the router supports inbound connections from outside...
phillipmcmahon You are very confused about several things, such as the purpose of this thread and my need in your advice/ideas/suggestions, so let me be CRYSTAL CLEAR, as I take the time to clarify these things for you:
- The purpose of this thread (besides recieving product availability information directly from Netgear, and NOT user speculations about it) is to point out to Netgear essential features, currently missing from the device and communicate to Netgear the need to make those software enhancements in the upcoming firmware updates. Trying to come up with workarounds for the missing features goes directly against the purpose of this thread, as it may create false impression for Netgear product managers that implementing these features may not be all that important, if an easy workaround exists (for the record - it does not). Therefore, your efforts to provide any workarounds are counterproductive, as they undermine the very purpose this threat was created for, and they are unwelcome.
- I'm a principle level software and networking engineer (among other things), with over 20 years of experience in those areas. You are NOT qualified to give me advice on any workarounds, related to networking issues discussed here. I've done extensive, professional grade research on all these issues, and therefore I already know everything there is to know about possible solutions/workarounds for lack of dynamic DNS support, and I'm already doing about it everything I need to do. For the aforementioned reasons, your advices/ideas/suggestions on this topic are not needed or welcome.
- About 90% of what you said in your last lengthy post is a complete nonsense and is simply false. I won't spend my time refuting your statements one by one, but I will say this again: you are NOT qualified to give advice on these matters. Based on the things you said, you are trying to give advice on things you are clueless about, and as stated - no advice is required in the first place (even if you did suggest something that was correct).
I hope this clarifies where we stand on the need for your input on workarounds for lack of dynamic DNS support, and I hope we can get the conversation back on track and make it again about missing features Netgear needs to implement, and things like ETA for this product's release for North American market.
Rather than just posture about how right you are and how wrong I am, how about you share your information related to the easy workaround for CG-NAT and also how implementing a DDNS client on the Netgear would help.
You keep mentioning a lack of DDNS support, can you please explain what would be solved if you have either the CG-NAT external IP or the internally assigned IP that could only ever be supplied by the client?
As stated earlier whatever IP you get from a DDNS client is NOT going to be routable if you are behind CG-NAT. There are whole business models offering paid for solutions to help people solve this problem. I mentioned one already, ngrok. Essentially a proxy solution.
I don't disagree that a DDNS client could be useful in some situations. But the moment CG-NAT got mentioned then there is simply no way DDNS can help you here for the reasons in the paragraph above.
Your experience and roles sounds impressive... however you seem less than capable to discuss a topic that might require a back and forth. What of what I wrote earlier was incorrect to the tune of 90%?
Consider I have a CG-NAT setup, I have implemented a solution both using a vpn tunneling setup and also light weight proxying via ngrok that has allowed me to access my network remotely and publish persistent services via static links. None of this was possible using any form of DDNS client. I also know what I am talking about. If you still disagree rather than just say so, then SHARE what you know.
HI Blanca_O ,
Please remove this troll phillipmcmahon from Netgear forums. He keeps stalking me accross different threads, despite being asked more than once to leave me alone and what is more concerning - he's spreading false information. The concern and the danger here is that your product managers, who decide on Nighthawk features, may be less technical than your engineers, and therefore there is a chance they could be deceived by this troll's misinformation, such as his false claims adding dynamic DNS support to Nighthawk will not work with mobile carrier's NAT, and decide not to implement this essential feature, based on false misinformation this troll keeps spreading accross forum threads, where he's stalking me.He must be stopped and disallowed to spread any more misinformation, and I would like to put it on record that adding dynamic DNS support to Nighthawk WILL absolutely, 100% work with carrier NAT and provide full and robust solution for connecting to Nighthawk managed networks from outside world. It has already been done with other devices, and thoroughly tested.
It is a technical forum and I have only ever responded witht technical discussion. I am not trolling but tried to engage in a technical conversation regarding the request to add DDNS as a solution to get around CG-NAT. My position is that it will only work when you are either NOT behind CG-NAT (rare) or you have a service specifically allowing services to be advertised and accessed, usually a business type contract (expensive).
There are options but none rely on DDNS and rather use VPN or proxy type solutions.
I have no issue being educated to other methods, however you have not provided any technical discussion on why you think what I have presented is not the case. You rather seem offended someone is simply disagreeing with you on a technical level.
Relax a little and engage in discussion.
See some sites all repeating the same message.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
"Disadvantages[edit]
Critics of carrier-grade NAT argue the following aspects:
- Like any form of NAT, it breaks the end-to-end principle.[5]
- It has significant security, scalability, and reliability problems, by virtue of being stateful.
- It makes it impossible to host services.
- It does not solve the IPv4 address exhaustion problem when a public IP address is needed, such as in web hosting."
https://www.donaldsimpson.co.uk/2017/01/30/using-ngrok-to-work-around-carrier-grade-nat-cgnat/
https://amoss.me/2017/05/port-forwarding-behind-a-carrier-grade-nat/
https://superuser.com/questions/1258093/set-up-a-web-server-behind-a-carrier-grade-nat
"So the only ways to set up a server behind a NAT you don't control are:
-
Make the ISP do port-forwarding...yeah, that's not gonna happen. (Even though in theory NAT-PMP was supposed to permit that.) -
Obtain your own global address from somewhere else, for example there are VPN providers which support server hosting and can give you a static address.
-
If you have IPv6, that would be globally reachable, though you'd additionally need a service which can proxy connections from IPv4-speaking clients to your IPv6-only server (e.g. CloudFlare might do the job)."
FORUM MODERATORS: Kindly, please do your damn job - see my previous post