My di-624 d-link router won't serve up my personal web site

My problem is this: my web server will NOT serve up my web page to the outside world.

If I ping

formatting link
I get the correct IP address. If I view the page from my server or other computers on the router, they can see my website fine. However, when I browse the page from a computer not on the LAN, it will not serve it up.

My setup:

- Windows 2003 server

- d-link di-624 router

- server connected directly to the router

- Virstual Server page set to route TCP 80/80 to 192.168.0.103 always

- Firwall page looks like this: Allow MelsWebServer *,* *,192.168.0.103 TCP,80

Your thoughts are welcome.

Let me add that all this used to work BEFORE the Verizon install. Also, I can actually get to my server remote without a problem.

Thanks in advance, Mel

Reply to
Mel
Loading thread data ...

"Mel" hath wroth:

I assume that your "server remote" means that you can get to your DI-624 via "remote management" from the internet on port 8080. Is that correct?

Verizon blocks port 80 for incoming connections. Setup your web server on an alternate port number and see if that works. |

formatting link
Google for: verizon block "port 80" for additional comments and workarounds.

Verizon includes a firewall with their DSL service: |

formatting link
don't know anything about it. Hopefully, this is NOT installed on your Windoze 2003 server.

When you get it working, you might want to either change the IP address of your Windoze 2003 server to something that is outside the DHCP address range, *OR* setup "static DHCP" for this server: |

formatting link
insure that the IP doesn't change.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Jeff - I'm using 3389. Here is the entry.

Allow RemoteDesktopAccess *,* *,192.168.0.103 TCP,3389

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

formatting link
I don't know anything about it. Hopefully, this is NOT installed on

Reply to
Mel

Jeff - didn't notice the rest of your posting. Here are my answers.

Regarding the port number - I did call Verizon, then D-Link and Verizon alerted me to the blocking of port 80. The D-Link guy suggested 8080 which is how it's set up now.

Regarding the router - The router came from the FIOS installation folks.

Regard> "Mel" hath wroth:

formatting link
I don't know anything about it. Hopefully, this is NOT installed on

Reply to
Mel

The DLink guy is clueless. Don't use 8080. It's the common alternative to port 80, but it's also used by the DI-624 for remote config access to the router. Find some other port number.

Sorry. I'm not familiar with FIOS and how they setup their routers. We're kinda backwards on the left coast with no local affordable fiber. Free router and installation for one computer. Nice. |

formatting link

The decision between a static IP address or a DHCP assigned IP address for the Windoze 2003 server is a bit of a problem. File servers and print servers that do not move around should really have a static IP address. "Static DHCP" in the router does essentially the same thing, but makes the server rely on the router being present and working in order to function. The Windoze 2003 server also has a built in DHCP server, which requires that the server itself have a static IP address. I'm not sure how you have it setup but whatever you do, don't run more than one DHCP server on your LAN.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Ok. Spent a couple of hours with D-Link then switched to Microsoft Support. Turns out that indeed port 80 is closed. They used "telnet public_ip_address 80" to prove it. Neat trick. Didn't know that. I was using my PDA's web browser. Telnet is a heck of a lot quicker.

Microsoft says I need to ask the provider to open port 80. That there is no way around it. At one point I was talking to 3 people at once over in India somewhere.

I was thinking that with URL forwarding and another port number at my EasyDNS I could maybe get around it. MS says that won't work. Any thoughts?

BTW, "w> >

formatting link

Reply to
Mel

"Mel" hath wroth:

I use telnet for all kinds of diagnostics. Even if the device doesn't support telnet, it's still useful. For example, if I have a print server running LPR/LPD on port 415, a simple telnet to port 415 will show if the print server is alive and taking connections, or if the port is blocked. The error messages will tell the difference.

You an also use one of the online port scanner "security check" services to see if you have any open ports. If you have a web server properly redirected on port 80, these will easily find it. However, if the port is blocked (or router misconfigured), it will show port 80 as closed.

Blocking port 80 for incoming traffic is becoming all too common. Of course, it's for your own protection that the ISP's are doing this. Right. Just pick a different port number and you'll be fine.

It works quite nicely. I use it for VNC traffic all the time. Just add the port number after the URL. For example, my router is at:

formatting link
getting users to type in the port number is a bit tedious. So, as you suggested, URL redirection can easily include the port number.

Also, if you don't want to change your Windoze 2003 port number from

80 to 3333 (or whatever), you can make the change in the DI-624 router. Go to:
formatting link
virtual server page and make the public port 3333 and the private port 80.

Good guess. I'm a Unix guy. You're the first person to complain about this in perhaps 6 years or more. It's become almost institutionalized. Google shows 3,650,000 hits for "windoze". These daze, the only time I use the correct spelling of Windows is in part of an acronym expansion, where someone might try to search for the term.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Thanks for the above inputs, Jeff. Sounds like there are several ways around it. Will report back.

Didn't realize the "Windoze" term was so prevalent.

Reply to
Mel

"Mel" hath wroth:

Some stats. Using Google Groups advanced search, the first mention of the term "Windoze" was in June 1991.

formatting link
Using the same search, the first time I used the term was in June

1994. Since then, I've used it about 1100 times.
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.