NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
How to Port Forward Multiple Ports to a Single IP Address via Netgear Genie?
The overall goal is to forward multiple ports to a PS5 based on the IP assigned by my C7800 router.
Protocol TCP: 1935,3478-3480
Protocol UDP: 3074,3478-3479
or
Protocol Both: 1935,3074,3478-3480
When using the Netgear Genie app, I am only able to specify a single port or port range for a given IP address when Service Type includes UDP (e.g. UDP or TCP/UDP). Based on this, I have been able to create custom services as follows:
#1) TCP/UDP: 3478 ~ 3480
#2) TCP: 1935
What can be done to include 3074 in a custom service for UDP or TCP/UDP service types in addition to the current forwarded ports 1935 & 3478-3480?
3 Replies
> When using the Netgear Genie app, [...]
Forget the app, and use a web browser? Does the management web site
suffer from the same limitation/problem (whatever it is)?> [...] I am only able to [...]
What does that mean? Do your fingers stop working? Does the app
stop responding? Does it accept the complex rule, but ignore parts of
it? Or what?"not able" is not a useful problem description. It does not say what
you did. It does not say what happened when you did it. As usual,
showing actual actions (commands) with their actual results (error
messages, LED indicators, ...) can be more helpful than vague
descriptions or interpretations.Even if the router firmware is defective, and does not retain a
complex rule, what stops you from specifying multiple rules with the
desired effect?Thanks for the callouts. Apologies for the gaps in clear details.
> Does the management web site suffer from the same limitation/problem (whatever it is)?
-- Yes, this occurred when using the management website on PC. The app simply redirects me to the managment website via the device's default browser.
> What does that mean?-- First attempt: 1) Added a "TCP/UDP" custom service for port 1935 pointing to the PS5 IP. 2) Then, tried adding a second "TCP/UDP" custom service for port 3074 pointing to the PS5 IP, but received error message stating the IP was already referenced by another service and to check to ReadyShare, Port Forwarding, and other configurations within the website (I cannot locate the screen shot I had captured)
-- Second attempt: 1) Added a "TCP/UDP" custom service for ports 3478 ~ 3480 pointing to the PS5 IP. 2) Added a "TCP" custom service for port 1935 pointing to the PS5 IP. 3) Tried adding a third "UDP" custom service for port 3074 pointing to the PS5 IP, but received the same error message as above.
-- Third attempt: 1) Deleted the custom services from the second attempt. 2) Added a "UDP" custom service for port 3074 pointing to the PS5 IP. 3) Tried to add a "TCP/UDP" custom service for port 1935 pointing to the PS5 IP, but received the same error message as above.
-- Fourth attempt: 1) Deleted custom services from third attempt. 2) Recreated the TCP/UDP: 3478~3480 & TCP: 1935 custom services from the second attempt.
Licking my wounds, I contacted my ISP (Comcast) and requested they push a firmware version update. The tech forced a router reboot and said they pushed a new signal (not 100% on the details there). The firmware version displayed on the management website continued to show V3.01.43, the same version as prior to my call to Comcast.
Despite not getting port 3074 added, several hours later I successfully used the PS5 to play Destiny 2 online while also using party voice chat via the PS5 without triggering a router reboot or loss internet connection.
-- Fifth attempt: Looking to trigger the error message to include within this response, I repeated Step 3 of the second attempt above and was surprised when I did not receive an error message and instead successfully added a third "UDP" custom service for port 3074 pointing to the PS5 IP.
Does the router need to be rebooted following each custom service addition or would this error message be generated in the event the port was actively in use?> [...] but received error message [...]
Something like this one?:
The specified port(s) are being used by other configurations.
Please check your configurations of USB Readyshare, Remote
Management, Port forwarding, Port Triggering, UPnP Port Mapping
table, RIP, and Internet connection type.My favored suspect would be UPnP. If you're doing this stuff
explicitly, then you don't want the router trying to do it
automatically, behind your back. I claim.> [...] stating the IP [address] was already referenced by another
> service [...]
I doubt that it said that. There should be no problem with multiple
rules specifying the same server IP address, only multiple rules
specifying the same ports. On my D7000, for example, I have six rules
pointing at one server (for ports "20-21", "22-23", "25-25", "80-80",
"143-143", and "443-443"). Presumably, I could pack those into fewer
rules, but I prefer to be able to fiddle with them individually.> Does the router need to be rebooted following each custom service
> addition or would this error message be generated in the event the port
> was actively in use?I've never noticed any need for restarts when adding, deleting, or
changing port-forwarding rules, but I have UPnP disabled. (ADVANCED >
Advanced Setup > UPnP : Turn UPnP On).I've always had UPnP disabled, because _I_ want control over incoming
connections to systems on my LAN. So my experience with it enabled is
nil, so I know nothing about how it interacts with explicit port
forwarding, but I would not be amazed by conflicts between them (as that
message suggests).
If UPnP is enabled, and a UPnP-eligible server is active, then I'd
expect the router's UPnP stuff to get to work before you could slip an
explicit rule into place. Knowing nothing, I would not be amazed if you
got flaky behavior from a mix of explicit rules and UPnP.Assuming that the router starts fresh every time, and UPnP is the
cause of this behavior, then I'd guess that if you started the router
without that server connected, then you could define all the explicit
rules you wanted, and that might let you leave UPnP enabled along with
the explicit rules. (Or: disable UPnP, define the explicit rules, and
then re-enable UPnP, if you actually want it.)That's my hypothesis, in any case. (But what do I know?)