This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
I have an RBR50 connected to an AT&T modem/router with IP passthrough.
Synology web server is connected to the Orbi.
Port Forwarding is enabled for 80 and 443 between Orbi and Synology. However port 443 says closed if I try to run a test using a port checker on the web. Synology also indicates its showing closed.
AT&T is not blocking any inbound traffic to 443 so it's on the Orbi side. Any ideas?
I have AT&T as a service provider for Fiber; formerly I also had their U-Verse service with wireless receivers/DVR's.
Come to find out AT&T does block Port 443 for any inbound traffic. They specifically use this port for their wireless receivers/DVR's. Despite cancelling U-Verse last year, the IP/MacID of these services were still listed/cached in the AT&T modem/router which resulted in a permanent closure on Port 443.
SOLUTION FOR USERS WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE (assuming you do not have wireless receivers and just ATT fiber):
1. Login to ATT's modem router admin portal at 192.168.1.254
2. Click on Device>Device List>Clear and Rescan for Devices.
3. Perform a factory reset of the AT&T BGW210 modem/router, add port forwarding rules for allowed ports, then re-configure it for IP Passthrough to the Orbi again.
4. Apply or disable any additional settings needed for a secure network hosted by ATT or the Orbi.
This is probably a good solution for anyone with the following or similar equipment:
Re: ORBI - Port 443 Closed even with Port Forwarding?
> Synology web server is connected to the Orbi.
I know nothing about your "Synology web server". Does it support HTTPS?
> Port Forwarding is enabled for 80 and 443 between Orbi and Synology. > [...]
If you say so, but, with my weak psychic powers, I can't see your actual port-forwarding rule(s). Or any IP address reservations. Or what you're doing.
> [...] port 443 says closed [...]
But not port 80?
> [...] Synology also indicates its showing closed.
"it's"? "Synology" the corporation, or some (unspecified) "Synology" device, or what, exactly, "indicates" what, exactly, how, exactly?
It might be helpful if you described actual events in the real world, rather than providing your interpretation of what you believe a bunch of invisible stuff really means.
From my brief experiments with port forwarding, the Orbi appears to do exactly what it is told. The two obstacles that I encountered were:
When the upstream device is also a router and blocks the port. It is possible to surmount this issue by creating port forwarding rules on both routers, but complicated.
When the receiving device does not accept connections. Windows Firewall, for example, has separate rules for 'local' and 'remote' connections. Does Synology have a similar firewall configuration?
Re: ORBI - Port 443 Closed even with Port Forwarding?
Q: I know nothing about your "Synology web server". Does it support HTTPS?
Yes and the personal website domain I am hosting with it has SSL encryption enabled. I can access the domain externally (via standard port 80, unencrypted) or while connected to my local network via port 80 (unencrypted) and 443 (encrypted). However, external inbound through port 443 does not work when I run a port scan at https://www.grc.com/. My ISP has confirmed they are not blocking any inbound to any ports so the problem seems to be on the Netgear ORBI side.
Q: If you say so, but, with my weak psychic powers, I can't see your actual port-forwarding rule(s). Or any IP address reservations. Or what you're doing.
Re: ORBI - Port 443 Closed even with Port Forwarding?
Port forwarding can be a challenge. (Not having a Synology NAS) I did an experiment just now with my Epson printer, which has a built-in web server (doesn't almost everything now days?) It can be reached by both port 80 (http) and port 443 (https). When I connect to port 443 from the local LAN, my browsers throw a fit over the "self signed certificate" and hide the option to "go there anyway" in small print.
I then created a Port Forwarding rule: TCP port 443 to 192.168.1.4 (my printer). Click Apply.
Disconnecting my smartphone from the Orbi, I opened https://<my public IP>:443. Chrome(Anddroid phone) immediately threw up the same roadblock: "Self signed SSL cert". After selecting to go ahead, the Epson web page appeared, exactly the same as on the local LAN.
So, my assertion is that the Orbi does support forwarding port 443 to a device on the local LAN. As long as the device is accepting connections from the internet, "it works".
I see three possibilities for port forwarding to (any) port not working:
There is a router in front of the Orbi which is not forwarding the port. Since Gibson Research reports port 80 open, this would not seem to be the case. And, you have verified that the Orbi has a public IP address on the WAN port (not a private IP address it would have gotten from an ISP device.)
There is a typo in the port forwarding rule. (UDP instead of TCP. Wrong IP address for the Synology NAS. Forgetting to click "Apply")
The NAS is not accepting connections from the internet.
Do you have some other device on the local network that acceepts connections over port 443? (a printer such as mine? some other web server?) See if port 443 will forward to that device.
Re: ORBI - Port 443 Closed even with Port Forwarding?
> [...] I can access the domain externally (via standard port 80, > unencrypted) or while connected to my local network via port 80 > (unencrypted) and 443 (encrypted). [...]
I don't know what "access" or "the domain" or "externally" means to you, or which actual URL you're using, or where you're using it, or what any resulting error message might have been. Are you using some web browser or other, running on some computer or other, which is situated someplace or other, and you're specifying some URL or other, and getting some actual result or other?
Did you read any of that guide, or am I talking to myself? Which part of "actual" was unclear to you? Care to answer any of the questions, or report the results of any of the suggested tests?
> [...] My ISP has confirmed [...]
Actual results from actual tests might be more valuable than an ISP's assurance.
> All forwarding rules are established.
That's swell. I'm glad that you're happy. Sadly, my weak psychic powers have not gained strength, so I _still_ know no more about any of that than I did when I complained before.
> I see three possibilities for port forwarding to (any) port not > working:
I have AT&T as a service provider for Fiber; formerly I also had their U-Verse service with wireless receivers/DVR's.
Come to find out AT&T does block Port 443 for any inbound traffic. They specifically use this port for their wireless receivers/DVR's. Despite cancelling U-Verse last year, the IP/MacID of these services were still listed/cached in the AT&T modem/router which resulted in a permanent closure on Port 443.
SOLUTION FOR USERS WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE (assuming you do not have wireless receivers and just ATT fiber):
1. Login to ATT's modem router admin portal at 192.168.1.254
2. Click on Device>Device List>Clear and Rescan for Devices.
3. Perform a factory reset of the AT&T BGW210 modem/router, add port forwarding rules for allowed ports, then re-configure it for IP Passthrough to the Orbi again.
4. Apply or disable any additional settings needed for a secure network hosted by ATT or the Orbi.
This is probably a good solution for anyone with the following or similar equipment:
Re: ORBI - Port 443 Closed even with Port Forwarding?
> Come to find out AT&T does block Port 443 for any inbound traffic. > [...]
"AT&T" (your ISP) and "the AT&T BGW210 modem/router" are two different entities.
> "3" sounds potentially applicable.
> [...] Care to answer any of the questions, or report the results of > any of the suggested tests?
I'd expect the tests suggested in "3" to have revealed such a problem pretty easily. If "from a system on your LAN, try using the router's WAN/Internet IP address" works, but actual outside-world access fails, then something on the ISP side of the RBR50 would seem to be implicated.
