Comment on [Question] Firewall noob vs. port forward
BCsven@lemmy.ca 7 months agoI am no expert, but maybe something about 192.168 not being broadcast across wan as it is restricted to local…i coukd be wrong
Comment on [Question] Firewall noob vs. port forward
BCsven@lemmy.ca 7 months agoI am no expert, but maybe something about 192.168 not being broadcast across wan as it is restricted to local…i coukd be wrong
tofubl@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Can you please elaborate? Who’s restricting 192.168.0.x? It’s not actually WAN, right? It’s just a local network I connected the firewall to.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Again, I’m not a network expert. i just wondered if to the firewall your WAN side connection (not Actually WAN) had some baked in rules to drop 192.168 from that side?? If that is not it does your port forward specify IP range to forward from?
BCsven@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Also, would your firewall need dns pointing to 192.168.0.1 upstream? rather than to 8.8.8.8. In case it needs to find addresses on your upstream network when talking back? I’m throwing stuff at the wall here
tofubl@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
And I’m happy to see what sticks!
Pointing DNS to 192.168.0.1 doesn’t change anything, and I’m anyway able to talk out from behind the firewall to the 192.168 net, so that would mean that address resolution works in that direction, no?
I do agree, though, that it seems like the responses are not making their way back correctly, as I can see the requests coming in and replied to in the apache logs.
tofubl@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
I appreciate you taking a look. It does indeed have this option, but I have it disabled.
The forward specifies range 8888-8888 and translates it to 8888.