I have a BUffalo NAS that is able to use upnp tp open ports so I can use it when im away from home. However it indicates that upnp fails. CHecking the logs on the router this is the error it gives
[UPnP set event: Public_UPNP_C5] from source 192.168.1.100, Sunday, Apr 18,2021 11:54:46
Something in the UPnP protocol? I know very little about it. I normally disable UPnP, because I prefer to have explicit control over what can pass through my Internet-connected router.
> [...] how can i resolve this?
I'd use Address Reservation to fix the address of the NAS gizmo, and then configure port forwarding to allow access to it from the outside world.
Of course, various things external to this router can also cause problems with access to anything from the outside world. See, for example:
Thank you for replying back to my post promptly, here are the details of my connection
Firmware version? Connected to what?
The NIghthawk MR60 (or MK 62, one router and one satellite) has a FW version V1.0.6.102_2.0.45. The MK62 is connected via ethernet to a LAN port of my ISP supplied gateway, which is required for me to receive internet and cable TV services. The gateway is a Arris BGW210-700 provided by AT&T fiber and has been configured into IP passthrough mode which it allows the MK62 receive a public IP address (dynamic) via DHCP.
> what is C5 event? [...]
I've searched high and low, on this website, forums, and a thorough google search regarding a detailed explanation for this. The user manual has no references or a terminology of these event codes. The lack of information from Netgear has left me stunned. I am aware of the security issues with UPNP, however the Buffalo LS210D0201configueration prefers it before user defined port. The C5 event is generated when I confirm my preferences in the NAS GUI settings page, where it will attempt to reach the router and map the ports. To test if UPNP protrocol works on this wifi router, I ran a streaming webcam software (Yawcam) that uses UPNP and was able to successfully map ports.
> [...] how can i resolve this?
Prior to your response, I wanted to update that I actually had to reset the mesh system. Along the forums, I've read other users are experiencing a possible bug in the FW that causes issues with the address reservation messing with their naming of their devices, and their port fowarding rules. I only came accross the naming convention issue which why I ended up resetting the system.
> The NIghthawk MR60 (or MK 62, one router and one satellite) has a FW > version V1.0.6.102_2.0.45. The MK62 is connected via ethernet to a LAN > port of my ISP supplied gateway, which is required for me to receive > internet and cable TV services. [...]
See "Usual Problem 1" in that thread cited above. Getting any external access through two NAT routers might be impractical/impossible.
> [...] has been configured into IP passthrough mode which it allows the > MK62 receive a public IP address (dynamic) via DHCP.
Have you verified that that actually happens? On the MR60: ADVANCED > ADVANCED Home : Internet Port : Internet IP Address
An interesting experiment would be to configure the BGW210-700 as a full-function router, and connect the NAS directly to it. Should we blame the IP passthrough mode on the BGW210-700, or the UPnP (and/or port forwarding) on the MR60? The more gizmos between the NAS box and the outside world, the harder it can be to assign blame.
Another interesting experiment would be to configure the BGW210-700 as a full-function router, and the MR60 as a wireless access point, instead of as a full-function router. That, too, would put the responsibility for external access on the BGW210-700, so that's where you'd need to configure UPnP or port forwarding.
Visit http://netgear.com/support , put in your model number, and look for Documentation. Get the User Manual (at least). Read. Look for "Set up the router as a WiFi access point".
> [...] I am aware of the security issues with UPNP, however the Buffalo > LS210D0201configueration prefers it before user defined port. [...]
Less for Buffalo support to explain that way, perhaps.
> [...] I've read [...]
Thanks for the helpful links.
> [...] address reservation messing with their naming of their devices, > [...]
So far as I know, Address Reservation itself works. What fails is the part of the user interface which is supposed to let the user supply his own device names. That might be annoying, but I wouldn't expect it to affect actual network operations.
