Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Port Assignments: Rules?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 19, 2012, 7:25:58 PM1/19/12
to
I've got 3 IP cameras.
Thought I'd get cute and assign them IP addresses and Port
Numbers that were related.
e.g.
IP 10.0.0.131 uses Port 1310
10.0.0.132 uses Port 1320
10.0.0.133 uses Port 1330
Since doing this, things have gone weird on me. Only the last
camera (10.0.0.133) is working.
The others show up on a NetScan, but my little port scanning
utility does not find open ports - and sometimes I can get one of
their setup pages, but only using the "wrong" port number.
Question: Am I doing something stupid by assigning port numbers
so close together?
Windows XP, Tomato....
--
Pete Cresswell
Thought I'd get cute and assign them IP addresses and Port
Numbers that were related.
e.g.
IP 10.0.0.131 uses Port 1310
10.0.0.132 uses Port 1320
10.0.0.133 uses Port 1330
Since doing this, things have gone weird on me. Only the last
camera (10.0.0.133) is working.
The others show up on a NetScan, but my little port scanning
utility does not find open ports - and sometimes I can get one of
their setup pages, but only using the "wrong" port number.
Question: Am I doing something stupid by assigning port numbers
so close together?
Windows XP, Tomato....
--
Pete Cresswell
Char Jackson
Jan 19, 2012, 8:10:15 PM1/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:25:58 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>I've got 3 IP cameras.
Remind us of their make & model, in case that becomes relevant.
>Thought I'd get cute and assign them IP addresses and Port
>Numbers that were related.
Where & how did you do that? Does each camera have a web interface,
for example, that allows that?
>e.g.
>
>IP 10.0.0.131 uses Port 1310
> 10.0.0.132 uses Port 1320
> 10.0.0.133 uses Port 1330
>
>Since doing this, things have gone weird on me. Only the last
>camera (10.0.0.133) is working.
Are you accessing them from inside the LAN or from the WAN side of a
NAT router?
>The others show up on a NetScan, but my little port scanning
>utility does not find open ports - and sometimes I can get one of
>their setup pages, but only using the "wrong" port number.
It sounds like changing the port didn't actually work, but I'm not
clear on why that would be necessary anyway. Is the end goal to be
able to do port forwarding so the cameras can be controlled (not just
viewed) from the Internet?
>Question: Am I doing something stupid by assigning port numbers
>so close together?
No, the port number is a sort of like an identifier. (It's more than
that, but still...) It looks like you picked numbers that aren't
conflicting with anything else, so I don't see a problem there.
>Windows XP, Tomato....
wrote:
>I've got 3 IP cameras.
>Thought I'd get cute and assign them IP addresses and Port
>Numbers that were related.
for example, that allows that?
>e.g.
>
>IP 10.0.0.131 uses Port 1310
> 10.0.0.132 uses Port 1320
> 10.0.0.133 uses Port 1330
>
>Since doing this, things have gone weird on me. Only the last
>camera (10.0.0.133) is working.
NAT router?
>The others show up on a NetScan, but my little port scanning
>utility does not find open ports - and sometimes I can get one of
>their setup pages, but only using the "wrong" port number.
clear on why that would be necessary anyway. Is the end goal to be
able to do port forwarding so the cameras can be controlled (not just
viewed) from the Internet?
>Question: Am I doing something stupid by assigning port numbers
>so close together?
that, but still...) It looks like you picked numbers that aren't
conflicting with anything else, so I don't see a problem there.
>Windows XP, Tomato....
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 20, 2012, 1:34:49 PM1/20/12
to
Per Char Jackson:
utility app - that is mostly used only on Day-1 to set the port
and, if the user is so-inclined, a static IP addr instead of
using DHCP.
Personally, I assign static IPs via my router's static IP table.
>Are you accessing them from inside the LAN or from the WAN side of a
>NAT router?
All of the above.
>>Question: Am I doing something stupid by assigning port numbers
>>so close together?
>
>No, the port number is a sort of like an identifier. (It's more than
>that, but still...) It looks like you picked numbers that aren't
>conflicting with anything else, so I don't see a problem there.
Thanks. That was my core concern.
Reason for the choice of ports was to avoid remembering which
cameras use which port - especially as more cams are added.
This way, just take the IP addr and append a zero to it....
Or a "1" and/or a "2" for multi-stream cams.
FWIW after a few re-boots of router and devices things seem tb
settling down and only one camera using one kind of access is
still a problem - and my money is on my doing something dumb with
that one.
Lesson learned: when fooling around with a router's Static
IP/Port Forwarding tables and various devices' internal port
assignments don't expect things to just snap into alignment -
instead, allow some time and a few re-boots for everything to get
in synch.
--
Pete Cresswell
>>Thought I'd get cute and assign them IP addresses and Port
>>Numbers that were related.
>
>Where & how did you do that? Does each camera have a web interface,
>for example, that allows that?
Yes. All the cameras I have seen so far come with a little
>>Numbers that were related.
>
>Where & how did you do that? Does each camera have a web interface,
>for example, that allows that?
utility app - that is mostly used only on Day-1 to set the port
and, if the user is so-inclined, a static IP addr instead of
using DHCP.
Personally, I assign static IPs via my router's static IP table.
>Are you accessing them from inside the LAN or from the WAN side of a
>NAT router?
>>Question: Am I doing something stupid by assigning port numbers
>>so close together?
>
>No, the port number is a sort of like an identifier. (It's more than
>that, but still...) It looks like you picked numbers that aren't
>conflicting with anything else, so I don't see a problem there.
Reason for the choice of ports was to avoid remembering which
cameras use which port - especially as more cams are added.
This way, just take the IP addr and append a zero to it....
Or a "1" and/or a "2" for multi-stream cams.
FWIW after a few re-boots of router and devices things seem tb
settling down and only one camera using one kind of access is
still a problem - and my money is on my doing something dumb with
that one.
Lesson learned: when fooling around with a router's Static
IP/Port Forwarding tables and various devices' internal port
assignments don't expect things to just snap into alignment -
instead, allow some time and a few re-boots for everything to get
in synch.
--
Pete Cresswell
Char Jackson
Jan 20, 2012, 6:02:32 PM1/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:34:49 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>Lesson learned: when fooling around with a router's Static
>IP/Port Forwarding tables and various devices' internal port
>assignments don't expect things to just snap into alignment -
>instead, allow some time and a few re-boots for everything to get
>in synch.
I expect things to snap into alignment, but YMMV. :-)
Glad you're seeing some success.
wrote:
>Lesson learned: when fooling around with a router's Static
>IP/Port Forwarding tables and various devices' internal port
>assignments don't expect things to just snap into alignment -
>instead, allow some time and a few re-boots for everything to get
>in synch.
Glad you're seeing some success.
0 new messages