Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Gaming
    133 Posts 28 Posters 47.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • V
      vMAC @Marc05
      last edited by

      @Marc05
      After changing those settings this is what I get:

      
[2.5.0-DEVELOPMENT][admin@BridgesSense.localdomain]/root: pfSsh.php playback pfanchordrill

ipsec rules/nat contents:

miniupnpd rules/nat contents:
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.31 port = 9308 to any keep state label "192.168.1.31:9308 to 9308 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 9308
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.31 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 3074
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 3108
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 3167
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 3116
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.31 port = 9305 to any keep state label "192.168.1.31:9305 to 9305 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 9305
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.31 port = 9306 to any keep state label "192.168.1.31:9306 to 9306 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 9306
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.31 port = 3659 to any keep state label "EA Tunnel" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xx port 3659
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 3172
nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 24.255.xxx.xxx port 3096
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 9308 keep state label "192.168.1.31:9308 to 9308 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.31 port 9308
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3074 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.31 port 3074
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3108 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 3074
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3167 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 3074
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3116 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 3074
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 9305 keep state label "192.168.1.31:9305 to 9305 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.31 port 9305
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 9306 keep state label "192.168.1.31:9306 to 9306 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.31 port 9306
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3659 keep state label "EA Tunnel" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.31 port 3659
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3172 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 3074
rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3096 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 3074

natearly rules/nat contents:

natrules rules/nat contents:

openvpn rules/nat contents:

tftp-proxy rules/nat contents:

userrules rules/nat contents:

      It now appears to be working. Tonight we will try it out and see if we can get matchmaking.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • V
        vMAC
        last edited by

        When playing I get Strict NAT on both devices. Should this be the case with UPnP setup?

        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          Marc05 @vMAC
          last edited by

          @vMAC

          Under firewall rules, make an IPv4 allow LAN to any rule with the advanced option checked "Allow IP options". Test again after and see what happens.

          V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • V
            vMAC @Marc05
            last edited by

            @Marc05 said in Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT:

            @vMAC

            Under firewall rules, make an IPv4 allow LAN to any rule with the advanced option checked "Allow IP options". Test again after and see what happens.

            Still STRICT

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              Marc05
              last edited by Marc05

              You tried playing the game?

              Try following the steps in this guide:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whGPRC9rQYw

              Then test again, first without the outbound NAT rules, and second with them. Make sure the test involves playing a game, and not just doing a network test in the console.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E
                ELMcDonald
                last edited by

                Upgraded today to 2.5.0DEVELOPMENT and getting this error miniupnpd 80987 setsockopt(udp, IPV6_RECVPKTINFO): Invalid argument
                After looking at the redmine, it did't look like i needed to update miniupnpd.

                Any ideas or more info needed?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • E
                  EditioN
                  last edited by

                  Tested today with a base installation of 2.5.0DEV and two PS4s.

                  Base config, just UPNP enabled and Pure NAT.

                  I get NAT Type 2 on one console but always type 3 on the second.

                  I can see the following:

                  miniupnpd rules/nat contents:
nat log quick on ix0.10 inet proto udp from 10.XX.XX.XX port = 9308 to any keep state label "10.XX.XX.XX:9308 to 9308 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> XX.XX.XX.XX port 9308
rdr pass log quick on ix0.10 inet proto udp from any to any port = 9308 keep state label "10.XX.XX.XX:9308 to 9308 (UDP)" rtable 0 -> 10.XX.XX.XX port 9308

                  So UPNP seems to be working but for some reason only allowing one console, any additional debugging I should do here?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M
                    Marc05
                    last edited by

                    It seems that static ports on outbound NAT is still necessary. Make sure to create that rule as well.

                    E 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • E
                      EditioN @Marc05
                      last edited by

                      @Marc05 static port NAT is a workaround, and not a nice one.
                      The implementation we hope for is that two or more consoles work with only UPNP without any other special rules (similar to consumer grade routers)
                      The output above proves that upnp is working, I guess now the challenge is figuring out why only for one device/console.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        Marc05
                        last edited by

                        @EditioN

                        In my previous test earlier in the thread, I had tested with the patch provided in the redmine bug entry. I believe I had tested without the outbound rule enable, and just the patch. The results I posted seem to have UPnP working as intended for multiple consoles. After removing that patch and updating to the latest dev version of pfSense with the miniupnp RC version, the outbound rule was required.

                        @jimp
                        Did the code change from your patch make it into the miniupnp RC version provided in the latest dev release of pfSense?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • jimpJ
                          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                          last edited by

                          It wasn't my code/patch, I had just posted a compiled version of the code from miniupnpd. The latest RC code should be what's in snapshots now.

                          Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                          Do not Chat/PM for help!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            m0t0k0
                            last edited by

                            This is a fresh install upgraded the 2.5.0

                            I have enabled
                            Pure NAT
                            Automatic outbound NAT reflection
                            Default LAN to any rule has IP options
                            Enabled UPnP & NAT-PMP both have port mapping on

                            So the most basic setup

                            COD Warzone
                            Both machines can connect and play the game however both report strict NAT

                            Windows Xbox networking
                            Both machines can form Teredo IPV6 over IPV4 tunnel but it reports strict NAT

                            miniupnpd rules/nat contents:
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.100 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 81.158.220.33 port 3074
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 81.158.220.33 port 3160
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.100 port = 55226 to any keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.100:55226->55226 UDP" rtable 0 -> 81.158.220.33 port 55226
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.30 port = 50805 to any keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.30:50805->50805 UDP" rtable 0 -> 81.158.220.33 port 50805
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3074 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.100 port 3074
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3160 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 3074
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 55226 keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.100:55226->55226 UDP" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.100 port 55226
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 50805 keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.30:50805->50805 UDP" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.30 port 50805

                            I then tried the rules andrew_r posted earlier

                            To do this the machines were set with a static IP and outbound NAT rule was created with Static port option selected
                            (I just realised I did not have anything in the ACL field but I also did not select default deny so it should not matter)
                            I restarted the pf box and both machines

                            COD Warzone
                            The first machine connects and can play with moderate NAT
                            The second machine cannot connect

                            Windows Xbox networking
                            Both machines report an Open NAT

                            miniupnpd rules/nat contents:
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.6 port = 50805 to any keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.6:50805->50805 UDP" rtable 0 -> 86.138.134.168 port 50805
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.6 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 86.138.134.168 port 3074
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.7 port = 55226 to any keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.7:55226->55226 UDP" rtable 0 -> 86.138.134.168 port 55226
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 50805 keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.6:50805->50805 UDP" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.6 port 50805
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3074 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.6 port 3074
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 55226 keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.7:55226->55226 UDP" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.7 port 55226

                            Interestingly I ran the Xbox networking test first and as you can see above an automatic rule was created for both machines, however, when I tried to play Warzone it did not work but also the previously generated automatic rule disappeared

                            nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.6 port = 50805 to any keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.6:50805->50805 UDP" rtable 0 -> 86.138.134.168 port 50805
nat quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.6 port = 3074 to any keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 86.138.134.168 port 3074
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 50805 keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.6:50805->50805 UDP" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.6 port 50805
rdr pass quick on pppoe0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 3074 keep state label "DemonwarePortMapping" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.6 port 3074
                            B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • W
                              winger46146
                              last edited by

                              Still getting stick Nat.
                              2.5.0-DEVELOPMENT (amd64)
                              built on Wed Jul 08 13:03:53 EDT 2020
                              FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE

                              ipsec rules/nat contents:

                              miniupnpd rules/nat contents:
                              nat quick on em0 inet proto udp from 192.168.1.26 port = 55768 to any keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.26:55768->55768 UDP" rtable 0 -> (WAN IP) port 55768
                              rdr pass quick on em0 inet proto udp from any to any port = 55768 keep state label "Teredo 192.168.1.26:55768->55768 UDP" rtable 0 -> 192.168.1.26 port 55768

                              natearly rules/nat contents:

                              natrules rules/nat contents:

                              openvpn rules/nat contents:

                              tftp-proxy rules/nat contents:

                              userrules rules/nat contents:

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • B
                                borediniraq @m0t0k0
                                last edited by

                                @m0t0k0 I'm having the same problem with WZ on 2 XBOX consoles

                                M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • M
                                  m0t0k0 @borediniraq
                                  last edited by

                                  @borediniraq I gave up and moved back to OpenWRT works with just the click of a button

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • A
                                    andrew_r
                                    last edited by

                                    I'm not sure when it happened, but I installed the latest dev update as of last night and it's broken this again.

                                    A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • A
                                      andrew_r @andrew_r
                                      last edited by

                                      Update: false alarm; somehow something changed in one of the updates that broke my OpenVPN connection. "Fixing" that ended up routing ALL traffic through the VPN. Breaking it again fixed the NAT problem, but there is still something squarely with the OpenVPN client rules.

                                      I hadn't changed anything in the rules before it stopped working. I'll try setting it up again from scratch to see if that fixes it, but...

                                      Hopefully the 2.5.0 stable release will be out soon, that's all I can say on that! :/

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • JeGrJ
                                        JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator
                                        last edited by JeGr

                                        @jimp quick question as this popped up in my subforum: does the new miniupnp daemon to test or the version in 2.5 also have the patch for https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10398 included?

                                        Namely that was this miniupnp discussion: https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/issues/433 about problems with RFC1918 addresses on WAN.

                                        Also: the snapshots now already contain the new version, no need to manually patch/install it anymore?

                                        Thanks,
                                        \jens

                                        Don't forget to upvote 👍 those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

                                        If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • G
                                          goonie
                                          last edited by

                                          Is this topic really going to die like all the other previous topics on this same issue over the years. This has been ongoing for years now. Can we get a little more developer traction on this issue? What is needed at this point from the pfSense side of things? What is needed for the miniupnpd side of things? Please, lets not let this die again.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • J
                                            jonathanjadams
                                            last edited by

                                            I would also be interested to see if there has been any advancements on this.

                                            Has anyone managed to get this to work?

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.