Windows server setup behind NAT.

[Freebyrd]

my server is up and running and shows up on master list but can't connect to it.

I'm behind a Linux Nat Firewall.

I have ports forwarded to my internal ip.
ports 7777-7778 udp and tcp
port 7788 upd and tcp

When I check my log file it shows it's binding to 10.0.0.50 so that is the ip I forwarded the ports to.

I have several ips on the box itself but 10.0.0.50 is in the log file.

Have I missed something?

[apophis.ch]

Yeah thats true, it is not possible right now to Tell UT3 the correct IP.

The parameter multihome does not work, or does not work correctly. If you are behind a NAT, try to give the PC a directly available IP and deactivate all other interfaces. This is AFAIK the only possible solution right now.

To search the Forum "multihome" will lead you to several answers.

[Freebyrd]

For real they want us to put a box directly on the net with out a firewall.....


who in the world would release something in this day and age that won't work behind a firewall....

[apophis.ch]

NAT != Firewall...

and my Linux box runs smoothly without a firewall since years :P never had a problem. The problem is not that it doesn't work behind a NAT, normal Servers shouldn't be behind a NAT anyway, the Problem is many servers have multiple IP's and/or multiple network interfaces... and thats really a pain.

[Naked_Ape]

The problem is not that it doesn't work behind a NAT

Yes it is. Multihomed server have been reported to bind to the correct IP locally but report the wrong IP to the master list server (query port seems bugged in this respect though). This wouldn't have happened if they used a NAT compatible method for determining the IP at the master list server.


normal Servers shouldn't be behind a NAT anyway

That's a bunch of crap.

[apophis.ch]

The only reason to have a NAT (Network Adress Translation) is to have multiple Computer behind one real IP. Since the definition of a server is to offer services. The hiding of servers behind a NAT is in itself very contradictory.

Each server should have at least one IP, normally at your local Server Provider you get an IP for each virtual Server. At least up to the 8 IP's where you have to request it via RIPE. Sure you can set-up DMZ or PAT and have FTP or VPN aware routers, but why not give a server a real IP?

And instead of beginning a flame you could at least reason your opinion.

[Naked_Ape]

The only reason to have a NAT (Network Adress Translation) is to have multiple Computer behind one real IP. Since the definition of a server is to offer services.

And what on earth do the two have to do with each other?

The hiding of servers behind a NAT is in itself very contradictory.

Oh, really? How so?

Each server should have at least one IP, normally at your local Server Provider you get an IP for each virtual Server. At least up to the 8 IP's where you have to request it via RIPE. Sure you can set-up DMZ or PAT and have FTP or VPN aware routers, but why not give a server a real IP?

Ok, if your argument is to use PAT instead of NAT, I'll concede that point. But as I'm sure you're aware, most implementations called "NAT" these days are actually PAT so that point is moot. Still, preserving IP addresses is a great reason to use PAT.

Set up DMZ? If your servers are not already in a DMZ I pity you.

VPN routers? VPN for game servers. You must be delusional.

And instead of beginning a flame you could at least reason your opinion.

Why? You make a unqualified statement for no other reason than that you don't see a reason for it. I reply, unqualified, what I think that your statement is: a load of crap