[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Apache/DSL Modem/Port Forwarding



eric lin wrote:

--- Elizabeth Barham <lizzy@soggytrousers.net> wrote:
eric writes:
My isp qwest.net assigned dsl modem actiontec R1524SU, accord tech support said it use port 80, he said If I am going to broadcast website, I need to configure webserver to use other port and config modem to forward that port, so I use port 70
Listen 70
in httpd.conf
I tried http://(FQDN) or (public ip):70    it reponse connection refused-if
no appendix 70, then it show the modem 's configure page

my apache test page still can be accessed by , http://localhost, http://127.0.0.1, or http://192.168.0.2(shown in my ifconfig)
Can you access your Apache test page when httpd.conf is set to "Listen
70" like this:

   http://127.0.0.1:70

yes, I can access my test page by this way

?. If so, then you may be experiencing a problem related to your DSL
modem.


welcome any softer soln so I can save a little money to rent static ip.
actiontec tech support told me port 80 be used by that dsl/router


eric lin wrote:

--- Elizabeth Barham <lizzy@soggytrousers.net> wrote:
eric writes:

If so, then you may be experiencing a problem related to your DSL
modem.
welcome any softer soln so I can save a little money to rent static
ip.  actiontec tech support told me port 80 be used by that
dsl/router
You mentioned Port Forwarding in your original email so if your DSL
modem is capable of doing that then it may work.

Keep in mind, however, that the reverse action from your side of the
modem may not be what others see; it may be working but you can't see
it. After you set up port forwarding on your DSL modem then you may
want to ask a friend or someone with a different net IP address to try
and report what he or she sees.

Elizabeth

thanks your reply again,

I went to portscan.com, check my httpd header, it response can not find, so I guess if I can not see my website powered by my own pc, it also can not be access by outsider.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

Qwest said here's your static IP, but btw we're using port 80 for configuring the DSL modem, so you'll have to use another port for web traffic.

The DSL modem has the public ip address and your computer only has a private network address (eg 192.168.0.2) and you can configure your DSL modem to forward packets.

You are able to browse to any of the following: http://127.0.0.1/, http://127.0.0.1:70/, http://192.168.0.2/ and http://192.168.0.0:70/

You can browse the web and send email from this computer right? If so, then routing is most likely set up correctly.

Are you sure that you have entered the port 70 forward properly into the dsl modem configuration? The DSL modem config page should indicate that it is forwarding tcp traffic on port 70 to your web server on port 70 (you might be able to forward it from port 70 to port 80 on your web server and not add the extra Listen directive, I don't know how flexible your modem's web admin is). I wasn't impressed with www.portscan.com. Their 'HTTP headers' test might only look for responses on port 80. Since the page I saw didn't have a port number field, I doubt it's checking for a webserver on port 70. Do you know someone on another computer with telnet? They could attempt to telnet to your.qwest.public.ip port 70 and see if they get connection refused or if they can type GET /<return> and get a response.

As an aside, port 70 is gopher. How about binding to port 8080, 8008, or some other port above 1024 that isn't listed in your /etc/services file. It's not that big of a deal, but the 8008 or 8080 for non port 80 http traffic is fairly common. What would be even nicer is if your dsl modem has a configuration to change it's config page port. Many do. On reset it is back at port 80, but then you can change it to be port 8008 or whatever, then after saving that change and connecting to the web admin page on the new port, configure it to forward port 80 to your computer. That way you don't have to have people type in the port number.

Jacob




Reply to: