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

    Gaming
    28
    133
    45.3k
    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.
    • 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
                              • M
                                Marc05
                                last edited by

                                I think what's lacking at the moment is sufficient testing. The package responsible for UPnP has been update and is available in 2.5.0. Testing this requires a hardware setup that many don't have - if you're interested in resolving this and have the multiple consoles, multiple copies of the same game, and the time to test things, please do.

                                J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J
                                  jonathanjadams @Marc05
                                  last edited by jonathanjadams

                                  @Marc05 Thanks for getting back so quickly.

                                  I do have multiple Xbox Ones with the same game (note that some people including myself have been having issues with Ghost Recon Wildlands) and some time to provide some testing. My knowledge is not 100% but I can certainly give testing ago.

                                  Before I upgrade to v2.5 can I just confirm how best to conduct the testing:

                                  I have successfully gained Open NAT via the use of Outbound NAT rules and static ports as well as UPNP ACLs. My xboxes are contained within their own specific VLAN.

                                  Do I just need to remove all UPNP ACLs and Outbound NAT rules and then test to see if I get open NAT across consoles as well as seeing if I can play online in games I have previously had problems with?

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

                                    @jonathanjadams

                                    It's important to first get a baseline of what works/doesn't. The basic configuration that should be currently in place is:
                                    System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT

                                    • NAT Reflection mode for port forwards: Pure NAT
                                    • Enable automatic outbound NAT for Reflection: Checked

                                    Firewall / NAT / Outbound

                                    • Rule with the following: Interface: WAN | Source: Alias with console IPs | NAT Address: Interface IP | Static Port: Checked

                                    Firewall / Rules / LAN (or whichever interface the consoles are on)

                                    • Rule at top with the following: Protocol: UDP | Source: Alias with console IPs | Destination: Any | Allow IP options: Checked

                                    Services / UPnP & NAT-PMP

                                    • Enabled with UPnP & NAT-PMP both checkd
                                    • External Interface: WAN
                                    • Interfaces: LAN (or whichever interface the consoles are on)
                                    • Default Deny: Checked
                                    • ACL: (e.g.) allow 0-65535 10.0.5.0/24 0-65535

                                    Test
                                    After these settings are set, power off the consoles, reboot the firewall (to clear states, old mappings, and ensure a control state for testing), then power on the consoles. Now test the same game at the same time on two consoles.

                                    • Does it work?
                                    • What is the output of (Diagnostics / Command Prompt): pfSsh.php playback pfanchordrill

                                    Now upgrade to 2.5.0 and run through the same test steps. Please back up the configuration before upgrading.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • J
                                      jonathanjadams
                                      last edited by

                                      Thanks @Marc05 my settings are exactly as you have them. I will do some testing and post my results here.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • C
                                        chrcoluk
                                        last edited by

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

                                        miniupnpd

                                        Here is the github issue.

                                        https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/issues/226

                                        Ideally if we could see the rules created on linux, then its trivial from that to send the correct syntax to that github post, and then I expect we will see progress.

                                        pfSense CE 2.7.2

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

                                          My network setup:

                                          cable modem -> pfsense (WAN igb0) -> Access Point (opt1) (igb1)
                                  -> opt2 (igb2)
                                  -> opt3 (igb3)

Xbox One 1 Static IP: 10.100.100.100 Port: 56450 (wired) (igb2) 
Gateway: 10.100.100.1
Xbox One 2 Static IP: 10.200.200.120 Port: 53063 (wireless) (igb1)
Gateway: 10.200.200.1

Ignore the PS4 info as well as any other irelevant IP's in the miniupnd debug info I posted below since I was only testing the 2 Xbox One's.

PS4 Static IP: 10.0.0.100 (igb3)
Gateway: 10.0.0.1
PS4 Static IP: 10.200.200.121 (igb1)
PS4 Static IP: 10.200.200.122 (igb1)
Gateway: 10.200.200.1

                                          My miniupnpd.conf file:

                                          ext_ifname=igb0
port=2189
listening_ip=igb1
listening_ip=igb3
listening_ip=igb2
secure_mode=yes
system_uptime=yes
presentation_url=https://10.200.200.1:30000/
uuid=c09cf14b-f345-e551-63c7-0514bc6bb0d
serial=C09CF14B
model_number=20.7.3
allow 53-65535 10.200.200.120/32 53-65535
allow 53-65535 10.200.200.121/32 53-65535
allow 53-65535 10.200.200.122/32 53-65535
allow 53-65535 10.100.100.100/32 53-65535
allow 53-65535 10.0.0.100/32 53-65535
deny 0-65535 0.0.0.0/0 0-65535
enable_upnp=yes
enable_natpmp=no
clean_ruleset_interval=600
min_lifetime=120
max_lifetime=86400

                                          I manually built miniupnpd from source:

                                          root@pfsense:~ # miniupnpd --version
miniupnpd 2.2.0-RC1 Aug 23 2020
using pf backend

My Build Options for Miniunpd:

CHECK_PORTINUSE: on
IPV6           : off
LEASEFILE      : off
PF_FILTER_RULES: on
UPNP_IGDV2     : off
UPNP_STRICT    : off

                                          Unforunately I couldn't run a test where I only had just the 2 Xbox One's connected to the network. I ran miniupnpd in debug mode. I had other devices connected wired and wirelessly. Ignore anything except for the Xbox One static IP's and their gateways. I started both of my Xbox One's at the same time and started the same game (Apex Legends) at the same time. I then attempted to play same game with both xbox's while in the same lobby and it didn't work. One of the Xbox's would not connect but the other would. See the output below at pastbin.com since I couldn't post the entire output here:

                                          miniupnpd runnning in debug mode

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

                                            I wanted to add the below information in my original post as well but the forum wouldn't allow me after a certain amount of time ellapsed.

                                            I was able to achieve Open NAT for the "Xbox Live Service" for both Xbox One's. Gaming is completely separate from the Xbox Live service where the problem resides. miniupnpd did not add any port mappings for the game Apex Legends only for the static port that each Xbox One has port 56450 & port 53063. Search the miniupnpd debug log I posted at pastbin and you will only see 2 AddPortMapping requests. There should have been more port mapping requests for the port dynamically needed for the game Apex Legends. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

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