Ports used by uPnP on the 8800NL aren't released?

[billion_fan]

So here are the ports listed in the virtual server list. The PS4 is IP address 108. PS3 is 103. PS Vita is 102. This is without DMZ used at all and only uPnP enabled.

Virtual Servers Setup
Server Name External Port Protocol Internal Port Server IP Address WAN Interface Disabled Remove Edit
Start End Start End
(UPnP) 192.168.1.108:9308 to 9308 (UDP) 9308 9308 UDP 9308 9308 192.168.1.108 ppp1.1
(UPnP) 192.168.1.102:10070 to 10070 (UDP) 10070 10070 UDP 10070 10070 192.168.1.102 ppp1.1
(UPnP) 192.168.1.102:9306 to 9306 (UDP) 9306 9306 UDP 9306 9306 192.168.1.102 ppp1.1
(UPnP) 192.168.1.103:3658 to 3658 (UDP) 3658 3658 UDP 3658 3658 192.168.1.103 ppp1.1

In the above list the PS Vita (102) isn't even powered on - it's completely powered down. Sometimes it's the other way around and the PS3 won't be powered on but its IP address will still be listed in the virtual server list.

And just to reiterate if the PS4 is in the DMZ, and the PS3 stays in the virtual server list (even when powered off), then the PS4 will have a moderate NAT - don't know why as the port lists are different anyway. What I want to achieve - is the PS4 in the DMZ, with open NAT when the PS3 (or anything else) powered off. I'll be happy then. Thanks.

Thanks for that, I have submitted all your info to our engineers to comment/investigate, I will drop you a update in due course.

[MrChips]

Hi. Just thought I'd ask whether a problem was ever found with this by the Billion Engineers? There definitely seems to be a problem where if I power up a console it forces the other consoles on the network to have a moderate NAT. Then if I power-down the aforementioned console down again the ports remain in the virtual server list and the other consoles continue to have a moderate NAT unless I manually intervene and delete all entries from the virtual server list and power down all devices on the network - seems the only way to get an OPEN NAT again, besides power cycling the router itself.

[craiga79]

I have exactly the same issue. I have to manually remove ports from the virtual server list prior to starting a different console.

I have an Xbox One with the ports forwarded as recommended by Microsoft. A PS4 sits in the DMZ. The Xbox one shows open NAT the PS4 is moderate. The Xbox One and PS4 are always fully shutdown.

If I remove port 3074 from the virtual server list of ports forwarded to the Xbox, the PS4 gets an open Nat. Once the PS4 is fully shutdown, port 3074 remains allocated to it meaning I have to manually delete it so the Xbox can use it again. Its becoming a real pain.

Power cycling the router repeatedly is not an option due to the risk of DLM kicking in.

It seems a console in the DMZ cannot access ports that are reserved in the Virtual Server list. Is it possible to get a firmware that allows the DMZ to access all ports without restriction?

[MrChips]

Is this ever going to be fixed?

I'm on the verge of drop kicking this router through the window. Why do I have to manually release upnp opened ports, when all other routers I've owned do this automatically? And now, that I've set up IPTV for BT TV, the virtual server list is incomplete - as in, I get strict, moderate NAT, on applications even when there is nothing in the virtual server list (after I've manually deleted them). Therefore, to get open NAT I have to do a hard reboot of the router every time. And I've tried powering down the network devices but no still moderate NAT, only a router reboot works.

And since I've enabled IP TV the DHCP list is often incomplete - as in, only one or two devices listed even though there must be 3x 4x that on the network - which might explain too why the virtual server list is incomplete too.

[billion_fan]

Is this ever going to be fixed?

I'm on the verge of drop kicking this router through the window. Why do I have to manually release upnp opened ports, when all other routers I've owned do this automatically? And now, that I've set up IPTV for BT TV, the virtual server list is incomplete - as in, I get strict, moderate NAT, on applications even when there is nothing in the virtual server list (after I've manually deleted them). Therefore, to get open NAT I have to do a hard reboot of the router every time. And I've tried powering down the network devices but no still moderate NAT, only a router reboot works.

And since I've enabled IP TV the DHCP list is often incomplete - as in, only one or two devices listed even though there must be 3x 4x that on the network - which might explain too why the virtual server list is incomplete too.

I will check with our engineers now

[MrChips]

Thanks.

[billion_fan]

Is this ever going to be fixed?

I'm on the verge of drop kicking this router through the window. Why do I have to manually release upnp opened ports, when all other routers I've owned do this automatically? And now, that I've set up IPTV for BT TV, the virtual server list is incomplete - as in, I get strict, moderate NAT, on applications even when there is nothing in the virtual server list (after I've manually deleted them). Therefore, to get open NAT I have to do a hard reboot of the router every time. And I've tried powering down the network devices but no still moderate NAT, only a router reboot works.

And since I've enabled IP TV the DHCP list is often incomplete - as in, only one or two devices listed even though there must be 3x 4x that on the network - which might explain too why the virtual server list is incomplete too.

Can you post a screen shot of your Virtual server page, once UPNP has opened the ports for your PS3/PS4/Xbox

[MrChips]

Thanks Billion Fan. I'm afraid to say a few days ago I gave up on the 8800nl and bought a new router. So far I'm getting open Nat on all the various consoles in the house. Not sure how it works but one port on one xbox one uses 3074 and then on the other it's 52733 - a port for sure I've never seen in the upnp port list on the billion, and its used by the xbox one. It's early days but so far I'm not having any issues on the new router. It's not only the upnp issues I was having on the billion but I was going through occasional periods of packet loss that could only be fixed with a power cycle. Thanks for your help though. I'll see how it goes though - routers are a bit of minefield that need a bit of time to assess.