Nighthawk D7000v2 DDNS access over local wireless connection

[Tony_H]

I originally had a D7000v1 which worked fine with all my devices and DDNS devices all worked over the local wireless network. However, that went wrong after 40 days so I wound up with the D7000V2, now updated to the latest firmware.

There are really two questions here so bear with me.

I have a DDNS account with Noip with 3 hostnames. One is a Synology network drive, one is for 2 IP cameras wirelessly attached and the other a solar monitoring device hard wired into my network.

The Cameras support UPnP and are listed in the routers list of UPnP attached devices. (Although I have to reboot both cameras and router to get them recognised)

The Synology drive always works and NoIp always has the right IP address no matter what  hostname address in used on the DDNS router page so that's OK. So I have entered my cameras hostname into the router DDNS setup. Unfortunately once my IP address changes the Solar monitor hostname is incorrect with Noip.  So that's one problem.

The next is: As long as Noip has all the correct IP addresses I can access the camera & solar monitor wirelesly using the hostnames but ONLY if I am using a different network.

For example the camera app on my phone works while I am away over the phone network but as soon as I am connected to my wireless network it won't connect using the hostnames to my cameras.

I haven't any port forwarding setup for the cameras as I didn't need to on the original D7000. Afraid I am not too hot on such matters but I have a feeling the problem may be related to the router not corresponding with NoIp, due perhaps to a device port number not being open for two way communication?  

Any guidance would be much appreciated.  Thanks.

[antinode]

> I originally had a D7000v1 which worked fine with all my devices and
> DDNS devices all worked over the local wireless network.

   What are "DDNS devices"?  At least one of us may be confused.  As I
understand it (if I do), Dynamic DNS simply provides a DNS name for your
router which gets updated appropriately when your public IP address gets
changed.  It doesn't provide anything for any specific devices on your
LAN.  Does it?

> I have a DDNS account with Noip with 3 hostnames.

   I don't know what that means.  Do these "3 hostnames" point to
different addresses, or do they all point to the same address?  (Which,
I'd guess would be your router's public (WAN/Internet) IP address.)

> The Cameras support UPnP [...]

   I know approximately nothing about, and never use, UPnP.

> The Synology drive always works and NoIp always has the right IP
> address no matter what  hostname address in used on the DDNS router page
> so that's OK.

   I don't understand that.  Does this mean that all "3 hostnames" point
to the same address (your router), so that it doesn't matter which one
you use?  (And configuring three names instead of one was a waste of
time and effort?)

> So I have entered my cameras hostname into the router DDNS setup.

    What is "my camera[']s hostname"?  What is "the router DDNS setup"?
This could all be much clearer if you did copy+paste of the actual
information, instead of trying to describe it all in a detail-free way.
Hide your public IP address if you want, but don't hide everything about
what you're doing.

> Unfortunately once my IP address changes the Solar monitor hostname is
> incorrect with Noip.

   I don't know what that means.  Does it mean that the router's DDNS
stuff updates only one DDNS name, and so two of your "3 hostnames" don't
get updated as you expect?  (One more reason that dealing with "3
hostnames" was a mistake?)

   Note that I have a real domain and a static (public) IP address, so I
also don't deal with DDNS.

> As long as Noip has all the correct IP addresses I can access the
> camera & solar monitor wirelesly using the hostnames but ONLY if I am
> using a different network.

   As I read this, you can access a device like a camera if you use your
public IP address (or a DNS name which is resolved to that address), but
only from ourside your LAN, not from within your LAN.

   That ability is often called "NAT loopback", and it should work.  We
are talking anout Netgear router firmware, so many things are possible
(especially bugs), so it's possible that it worked on the D7000[v1]
(which I can confirm), but does not on the D7000v2 (which I can't
confirm).  (At least it works with port forwarding on a D7000[v1].)

> For example the camera app on my phone works while I am away over the
> phone network but as soon as I am connected to my wireless network it
> won't connect using the hostnames to my cameras.

   Which ports do these cameras use?

> I haven't any port forwarding setup for the cameras as I didn't need
> to on the original D7000.

   That's what I'd do.

> Afraid I am not too hot on such matters but I have a feeling the
> problem may be related to the router not corresponding with NoIp, due
> perhaps to a device port number not being open for two way
> communication?

   My advice would be not to think about ports being "open".  For a
recent port-forwarding lecture which might have some value:

      https://community.netgear.com/t5/x/x/m-p/1504854

   In your case, the "server program" discussed there is in the firmware
of a device like a camera.

   However, I know nothing about which ports your cameras and other
gizmos use, or what you've configured with No-IP, or how you tell your
camera app to locate a camera, or much else.  And, as I've said, I'd use
port forwarding for this sort of thing.

[Tony_H]

antinode, thanks for your reply.

Firstly a few observations on DNS and different modems.  Interestingly on the D7000v1 if I entered noip.com as the hostname all 3 of my  hostnames had the correct internet address assigned. This also worked with my previous router and with the Synology drive on the D7000v2.  So yes, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that once one's password and login name was entered into the routers configuration, then the router should communicate with Noip so Noip would then have your IP address and assign it to each hostname.

However, I can easily alter the Solar monitor to share the cameras hostname so not too worried about that.  But as the whole idea is that someone can have multiple hostnames, somehow they have to get hold of ones internet address and they won't work if the service Noip can only pick up on one address.  However, having read the link you sent I can see that maybe it's not as easy as that.

I agree a static IP is an easier solution but I should be able to get the hostnames working although I'll forget about the one that doesn't update and assign it to one that does.

Yes, the hostname is just the same as using your static IP address, it serves no other purpose other than allowing those of us that have changing IP addresses to have the new address assigned to the hostname (hopefully!!). Also I guess you can also use it as a web address on your computer depending how you're using the service.  And it's easier to remember a name. The hostname isn't specific to any device, it purely represents the router's public (WAN/Internet) IP address.

The 2 cameras use posts 6212 & 6213, both ports are reported as open when I use canyouseeme.org and so is the solar monitor on port 6201

Here is a copy of the port forwarding rule for the solar monitor. I'm sure you'll tell me if I have entered it incorrectly?

	#	Service Name	External Start Port	External End Port	Internal Start Port	Internal End Port	Internal IP address
	1	REGI	6201	6201	80	80	192.168.0.15

I assume because the cameras are listed in the routers UPnP attached device list this has enabled the ports to be seen.  I did try adding one of them to the Port Forwarding rules but then it couldn't be seen by canyouseeme.org.

The business of the hostnames not working over my LAN is a mystery. I'm glad it has an expert confused, we'll put it down to a firmware glitch for the moment. perhaps you could guide me down the port forwarding route, although I have experimented with this before without success but that could just be my incompetence. I could remove them from the UPnP list so there's no conflicts.

One camera's basic network settings are:

IP address 192.168.0.10

Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0

Gateway 192.168.0.1

DNS Server 192.168.0.1

Http port 6212

Having used different routers at times I have had to change the Subnet Mask to suit, I trust I've got it right as I know it won't work properly otherwise.

I'll have another (or more), read though the link you sent and try and grasp the concepts more firmly.

Thank you very much for your support.

[antinode]

> Firstly a few observations on DNS and different modems.  [...]

   I still have no real info on what you're doing with DDNS, only my
guesses based on vague/confused descriptions.  What are these "3
hostnames"?  Are they (or do you expect them all to be) resolved to your
public IP address?  You do have one public IP address, right?  And
that's the WAN/Internet IP address of you modem (not any LAN IP
addresses of gizmos on your LAN)?  What's the point of defining (or
trying to define) "3 hostnames", if they all point to the same IP
address, that is, your router?

> [...] But as the whole idea is that someone can have multiple
> hostnames, [...]

   That may be _your_ whole idea.  My whole idea is that you have one
public IP address, that of your router, so there's no good reason to
associate multiple names with it.  All this can do is cause confusion.
Different devices on your LAN must be specified using different port
numbers (at your single public IP address).

> I agree a static IP is an easier solution but I should be able to get
> the hostnames working [...]

   My only point about a static address was that, because I have one, I
don't deal with DDNS, so, as a DDNS non-expert, I need clear
descriptions from you of what you're doing with DDNS.  I claim that
trying to maintain multiple DNS names for one thing, your router's
public IP address, is a waste of time and effort, and a source of
considerable confusion.

> [...] And it's easier to remember a name. [...]

   Yeah, but it's harder to remember "3 hostnames", if they all point to
the same IP address, that is, your router.  And it's apparently harder
to keep them all updated using DDNS when your IP address changes.

> [...] The hostname isn't specific to any device, it purely represents
> the router's public (WAN/Internet) IP address.

   Exactly my point.  So why "3 hostnames" for one thing?  Assuming that
that horse is all dead (not just mostly dead), lets continue.

> Here is a copy of the port forwarding rule for the solar monitor.
> [...]

   Ok, so the solar gizmo offers a web server on port 80, so you'd
access it locally using port 80 (the default for "http://"), and on port
6201 at your public (WAN) IP address ("http://xxxx:6201").

   If NAT loopback is working properly on your router, then, from within
your LAN, you should get the same effect from either:
      http://<solar_gizmo_LAN_address>
or:
      http://<your_router's_public_IP_address>:6201

And the second one should also work from the outside world.  And, if
some DNS name will be resolved to your router's public IP address, then
you could use that name instead of that address.

   This works for me on my D7000[v1].

> I'm sure you'll tell me if I have entered it incorrectly?

   If I could see it all, then I might.

> [...] I did try adding one of them to the Port Forwarding rules [...]

   With my weak psychic powers, I can't see what this port-forwarding
rule might have been, so I have no chance of guessing why it might not

have worked.

> The business of the hostnames not working over my LAN is a mystery.

   Part of the mystery for me is not knowing what they are, to what they
resolve, why there is more than one of them, and so on.

> One camera's basic network settings are:
> IP address 192.168.0.10
> Subnet Mask 255.255.255.0
> Gateway 192.168.0.1
> DNS Server 192.168.0.1
> Http port 6212

   If the camera presents its web server on port 6212 on the LAN, and
you want to use that same port on the WAN (which would be reasonable),
then the port-forwarding rule would be:

   Protocol(s)  External port(s)  Internal port(s)  Server IP address
      TCP            6212               6212          192.168.1.10

The other camera would be similar, with its different port and LAN
address.

> Having used different routers at times I have had to change the Subnet
> Mask to suit, I trust I've got it right as I know it won't work properly
> otherwise.

   Using a subnet mask other than "255.255.255.0" would be unusual in a
home/small-office environment.  Using a different subnet would be more
likely.

[Tony_H]

I have had a complete re-set of the router and started again from scratch.  Unfortunately with the same result.  Just concentrating on the solar monitor for which I had instructions to set up port forwarding on a BT Homehub 5:- It says to enter 6201-6201 in the port range and in the "Translate to" fields 80 & 80.  I think that's what I have done, as shown in a post above.  Actually it's a bit more complicated on a HomeHub as you have to create a game rule and then forward that.

With port forwarding set I can access the monitor using either my IP address: Port or the hostname: Port whilst NOT connected to my network.  I have tried using the IP address:6201 on my PC but that refuses to connect, it works fine over the LAN address.

It's exactly the same story with the cameras. Either IP address: port or Hostname: port fine on any other network other than mine.

I have tried all combinations of port number with & without port 80 in port forwarding to no avail for cameras & solar. Except I do need it set as shown in previous post for the solar monitor to work at least from outside my network.

I read another post where someone had said port forwarding doesn't work on the D7000v2. Maybe he was partially right, but if it's only used by someone on another network I guess it does work.  So, I'm flummoxed for the moment.

You said:"   If NAT loopback is working properly on your router, then, from within
your LAN, you should get the same effect from either:
      http://<solar_gizmo_LAN_address>
or:
      http://<your_router's_public_IP_address>:6201

"

Well, I guess NAT isn't working.  Incidently I tried turning off the security in WAN settings by turning NAT filtering to open. Re-boot and still couldn't get any joy but I may try that again and double check the IP address (changed) but I'm pretty sure I checked it first time round.

[antinode]

> [...] I have tried using the IP address:6201 on my PC but that refuses
> to connect, it works fine over the LAN address.

   Is there an actual error message associated with "refuses to
connect"?  ("connection refused", perhaps?)  I'll assume that "works
fine over the LAN address" means when you specify no port number or
":80".

> Well, I guess NAT isn't working.

   "NAT loopback", not "NAT" as a whole.  As you said, it works from the
outside.

   That may be.  Around here (D7000[v1], V1.0.1.60_1.0.1, and back as
far as V1.0.1.48_1.0.1, so it's not news) my port-forwarding rules
include this:

      11  cam1  TCP  5801-5801  88-88  10.0.0.113
 
and I can talk to that camera using either the LAN or WAN address (with

an appropriate port).  For example, using Wget (whose results are easier
to copy+paste than web-browser output, and where I've replaced my public
address with "aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd"):

ITS $ wget -O cam1_local.out http://10.0.0.113:88
--2018-02-16 12:29:53--  http://10.0.0.113:88/
Connecting to 10.0.0.113:88... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 18011 (18K) [text/html]
Saving to: 'cam1_local.out'

cam1_local.out      100%[=====================>]  17.59K  --.-KB/s   in 0.008s

2018-02-16 12:29:53 (2.15 MB/s) - 'cam1_local.out' saved [18011/18011]

ITS $ wget -O cam1_remote.out http://aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd:5801
--2018-02-16 12:30:08--  http://aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd:5801/
Connecting to aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd:5801... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 18011 (18K) [text/html]
Saving to: 'cam1_remote.out'

cam1_remote.out     100%[=====================>]  17.59K  --.-KB/s   in 0.006s

2018-02-16 12:30:08 (2.86 MB/s) - 'cam1_remote.out' saved [18011/18011]

   Comparing those results:

ITS $ gdiff -s cam1_local.out cam1_remote.out
Files cam1_local.out and cam1_remote.out are identical

   And they really do come from the camera:

ITS $ search cam1*.out camera

******************************
SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]cam1_local.out;1

        <div style="height:63px;width:100%;">Indoor Pan/Tilt IP Camera</div>
                <div style="height:63px;width:100%;">Indoor Pan/Tilt IP Camera</div>

******************************
SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR]cam1_remote.out;1

        <div style="height:63px;width:100%;">Indoor Pan/Tilt IP Camera</div>
                <div style="height:63px;width:100%;">Indoor Pan/Tilt IP Camera</div>

   If that sort of thing fails for you (and your D7000v2), which seems
to be the case, then it would appear that, with regard to NAT loopback,
your D7000v2 firmware is more defective than my D7000[v1] firmware.  And
with that I can't help you.  An explict complaint to Netgear might be
required, because I would not bet that you'll get any more of a response
from Netgear in this forum than you have up to now.

[Tony_H]

Thanks for your reply.

You are correct, when tring to connect using my public IP address : Port over the LAN I get the following:

This site can’t be reached
(Deleted) refused to connect.

Search Google for (deleted)
ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED

The cameras are listed in the UPnP with their ports and as I said, work OK on any network via the public IP address but mine. As UPnP is supposed to get connected gadgets working without fiddling with the router one can only assume the router software has a problem, especially as the solar monitor suffers the same problem with port forwarding set up.

Out of a sense of duty I feel obliged to at least tell Netgear but as you say, getting a response is probably unlikely. Before I bought the Netgear router I was very tempted to get a DrayTek but as it was more expensive I didn't, maybe a false economy as I've wasted a lot of time on this. Although whose to say that would have been any better? maybe not.

Thank you very much for all your time and input, it's been very much appreciated.

Tony