Networking & Wireless forum

General discussion

Port Forwarding Settings on a WET610N Wireless Bridge

Hello All,

I've been looking for some time now in regards to this question and I can't come up with any results. I have a Netgear Router connected to a cable modem acting as DHCP router for all computers connected and IP

I have two computers which take addresses and The DHCP server is set to allow - Regular port forwarding using the web console works fine to all wired servers - lets say

Now heres the tricky part. I have a DVR for a security system which would normally be wired and configured to forward both ports 2000 & 3000 to a static ip lets say so to call from a browser

Unfortunately I cannot place the DVR in a wired location so I recently purchased a Linksys WET610N Bridge to place it onto the wireless network. I set on the router to take the position as the static ip : and on the primary router I set the port forwarding to access the ip. But the ports still will not be contacted. I tried to set the bridge to DHCP and still no success. The settings on the DVR are set to the static ip address (as if it was wired directly to the router). I have also tried using the DHCP setting on the DVR (to take DHCP from the bridge which is designated to the static ip

Keep in mind when trying to solve this problem is that the DVR system has a designation for DHCP or Static IP (with ip/gateway/subnet choices as well as port number config) as well as the wireless bridge which is connected to the router (ip / subnet / gateway).

What settings should I be using?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Port Forwarding Settings on a WET610N Wireless Bridge
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Port Forwarding Settings on a WET610N Wireless Bridge
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -

In reply to: Port Forwarding Settings on a WET610N Wireless Bridge

A bridge is a stupid device and when operating correctly should not be detected in IP traffic.

From your description it leads me to think you placed the IP you want to use for the DVR on the bridge. Unlike a router the bridge will not pass traffic it receives on a IP out to another device, it assumes all traffic coming to that IP belongs to him. You want the bridge to have its own address and it will only be used to make changes to the bridge configuration.

All a bridge will do is convert the media from wired to wireless it does not even look at the IP or the ports. You really should not have to change the PC at all.

Collapse -
Same problem, w/a little more info...

In reply to: bridge

The specifics:

-Security DVR in a room that cannot be hard-wired to the wireless gateway.
-Wireless gateway access (internal) allows for "Port-Forward" settings.
-Port Forwarding internally in gateway completed with assigned IP & data ports.
-Linksys WET610N Bridge connected to Security DVR. Able to "see" DVR on PC that's connected to the gateway, and connect in "DHCP", but when IP address changes, connection is lost.
-Setting Static IP drops the visibility out.
-Due to DHCP settings, IP address changes and IP access for DVR lost when it does change.
-Set DDNS thru security DVR web site, to alleviate DHCP IP issues, but cannot connect thru assigned IP address/port.

After accessing the gateway's internal settings, found the IP assignments for the bridge and DVR, but they are listed in the DHCP table. As I stated before, the ports have been assigned in the "Port Forawrding" section of the gateway. Tried to make it static, but connection is lost when I "uncheck" the "Obtain IP Address Automatically", even though I assign the IP/subnet/gateway on the DVR as directed in their manual.

So, I am asking if anyone has been successful in porting their DVR wirelessly via bridge, and if so, how?

Collapse -
While advanced.

In reply to: Same problem, w/a little more info...

"I assign the IP/subnet/gateway on the DVR as directed in their manual."

That looks incomplete. Wouldn't we also need to put in a DNS number(s)?

Collapse -

In reply to: While advanced.

I put the primary and alternate DNS addresses in their appropriate address strings. Sorry that was not included in the original message, but I don't believe that's part of the problem.

Collapse -

In reply to: DNS

But I can't see what's amiss here.

If I was there I would be pinging that DVR from my LAN to be sure the connection is good internally. I apologize since I can't write tutorials in the forums. It's a choice I made long ago to not duplicate the easy to find web content and stick to the areas that are not so easy.

So back to the LAN and can you ping that DVR when hardwired to the WET610?
Can you pint the DVR when hardwired to the gateway?

Sorry but the picture of the setup is unclear from these posts. It sounds as if there is some PC stuck in the middle of the system between the DVR, WET610 and what ever is the connection to the internet.

Until the system is clearly documented in any way you can, guesses will likely be bad ones.

And yes, I've done this before. Not only that but I do work on electronic designs for DVRs and more.

Collapse -
(NT) Okay.. let's try this:

In reply to: Sorry.

Collapse -

In reply to: Okay.. let's try this:

Ok.. so let's try this:

DVR hard-wired to bridge. Bridge wirelessly connected to Motorola SBG900 Gateway. Home PC connected to Gateway.

DVR settings: (number(s) deleted for security purposes)

"Obtain IP address automatically" checked.

IP - 192.168.0.X
SNM - 255.255.255.Y
GW - 192.168.0.PP

Port 82

SBG internal software settings "Port Forwarding" set to forward ports "82" (access) & "6036" (data).

Can access remotely by way of IP Tools on PC, but when IP address changes (DHCP), lose connection.

Set IP static per manufacturer's instructions. Can no longer access DVR remotely by PC.

Set up DDNS to alleviate DHCP, according to DVR & web site, config. good, but it will not connect thru IE.

Firewall issue?

I have checked numerous web sites to confirm the port forwarding is correct. The only time I can get a connection is when I select the "Obtain IP address automatically".

Collapse -

In reply to: Oops!

That cleared up a lot. It's a bog standard setup so let me read the WET manual and see if there's a clue. Here's WHY -> Because we can't pipe all data over the bridge, the SMARTS in your average switched HUB that is inside routers and more won't send the data to all ports and over that bridge. This is why DHCP may be a factor and now I have to read the fine manual (RTFM) on the wet bridge.

Be back in a bit.

Collapse -
DVR settings: (number(s) deleted for security purposes)

In reply to: Port Forwarding Settings on a WET610N Wireless Bridge

DVR settings: (number(s) deleted for security purposes)

"Obtain IP address automatically" checked.

IP - 192.168.0.X
SNM - 255.255.255.Y
GW - 192.168.0.PP

-> Now that I read the manual the only mistakes that I see possible is you set the IP of the DVR to one that is in the DHCP range of the DHCP server. If said DVR was handed out then you don't want to use that since that would be in the DHCP range and you could get a DUPLICATE IP error message.

Sorry if that's too much information but we are moving to advanced network setups.

The second error is that you deleted the numbers for security reasons. ALL 192.168.x.x ranges are unreachable from the internet and are reserved for internal LANs. Why folk hide such is likely because they didn't know that.

--> But there's a clue here. If your new networker tried to access that from the web they would write it failed.

There's more but for now it's time to make sure the DVR IP is not in the DHCP range and then be sure that it can be pinged.

Collapse -
PS. Other idea.

In reply to: DVR settings: (number(s) deleted for security purposes)

Rather than port forward, put the DVR IP into the DMZ

Collapse -
Thanks Bob...

In reply to: PS. Other idea.

You're not talking too far over my head.. but network configuration is a bit of a ****** to me.

You are right tho... there are some aspects of LAN/WAN technology and security I am unfamilliar with.

Looks like I need to figure out the DHCP range of the server and then assign an IP that would fall outside the assignable DHCP addresses.. right?

The 4th assignment slot needs to be higher than the DHCP range, if I understand correctly? should work? Cannot assign address over 256 as I understand?

Collapse -

In reply to: PS. Other idea.

I hadn' tthought of that... but after reading up on it, seems logical. I have activated the NAT protocol on my gateway, so placing the IP address on the DMZ should let all traffic calling on that IP through, as I understand it?

Collapse -
Yes and Yes.

In reply to: DMZ

I'm glad you grasp the issues of static assigning IPs in the DHCP range (Bob stands in front of firing squad for using too many technical words in the first sentence.)

The IP numbers are from 0 to 255 in the dotted format with 0 and 255 having a special meaning in many LANs so we don't use those for our client machines.

The DMZ is the best idea I have since we might be unaware of another port number that DVR uses. In otherwords the documentation may be shortchanging us.

Collapse -

In reply to: Yes and Yes.

Ok.. so after WAITING ON HOLD FOR 1.5 HOURS WITH Q-SEE's "LEVEL 2 TECH SUPPORT" AND HAVING THE EXCHANGE HANG UP ON ME WHEN IT TRANSFERRED OVER, ONLY TO FIND OUT I HAD TO CALL IN AGAIN AND NOW WAS 15TH IN THE QUEUE.... I hung up the phone, steaming.. and decided once-and-for-all I was going to solve this issue.

I re-read (for the 10th time) how to set up the Q-See for remote monitoring. I decided the instructions, while they do their best to make them user-friendly.. are far from it. Oh, and for the record, I was never much of a *drinker* until I started this fiasco!

I decided I was going to reset the IP/SNM/GW settings to the default settings obtained when you first plug the ethernet cable to the bridge/router/modem/gateway/whatever you call the damn thing. Oh.. BTW, I had never persued *medicinal* (i.e. "recreational") drugs prior to starting this little journey..

After resetting the DSR, I noticed something different... the gateway address for the DSR was different than I had been using (is the problem becoming clearer now?) Prior to this, whenever I "unchecked" the "OIPAA" box the gateway address would go to "". Which means that it had no way to shake hands with the gateway because the settings were incorrect! I checked the current settings to verify they worked, got my "OK", then unchecked the "Obtain IP address automatically" box, and entered the values.

Mystically, magically, it worked! (I have descovered that peyote is an awesome soother at times like this). I could now view the video from my PC, from the internet, but one thing is still gumming the works up.... remote monitoring from a PC outside the home is still an issue. Unfortunately, my work PC's I.E. settings are not adjustable (corporate IS doomsday PC lockdown, active X controls, java, etc.) so I have no way of dumming down I.E.'s security and trusted sites to a level that will allow me to view the integrated web cam from a remote viewing site.

I now consider "death by lethal injection" a palatable alternative to dealing with Q-See's site support team.. I left them a nasty-gram voice message after their exchange hung up on me. I expect no call today.

"move along.. nothing to see here.. move along.. ma'am.. sir. please keep moving"

Collapse -
Moving along.

In reply to: PROBLEM RESOLVED!!! (sort of)

So the gateway was incorrect?

GW - 192.168.0.PP was above.

Without a gateway entry or an incorrect one, packets bound for the internet are not sent to the right place.

The only thing that could have made this easier was to see those PRIVATE IP addresses at each step. I know this is tough on folk but revealing 192.168.x.x numbers is not a security issue or risk.

There have been long discussions where the member won't reveal this and at the end it was one of the 192. numbers.

Collapse -
Done... but not over....

In reply to: Moving along.

Yes, as I stated above, my knowledge of security by WAN/LAN is rudimentary at best.

I will speak to Q-See this morning to see if I can resolve the remote viewing issues. I appreciate your assistance... as I get more answers, I will post them, as I'm sure more will have questions like myself.

Collapse -
Port Fwd with WET610N Bridge and Cisco E4200 Router

In reply to: Port Forwarding Settings on a WET610N Wireless Bridge

I had the same exact issue with my DVR. Could see it perfectly from inside my net, but could not get port forwarding to work from Web. I had the DVR outside my DHCP range, but for some reason I also went into my router and reserved that IP in the DHCP reservation page. I am not a router genius, but for some reason reserving the IP by Mac address did not break internal IP addressing, but it did break the port forwarding.

As soon as I removed all the DHCP reservations from my router, the DVR worked perfectly over the WET610N.
I feel stupid because I chased this for days.

Collapse -
Many Thanks

In reply to: Port Fwd with WET610N Bridge and Cisco E4200 Router

@AK_RunGeek, you're amazing! I fought with a home automation project (Arduino) for hours trying to get it to go behind a 610. DHCP reservation was my issue, too, but I would have never guessed it. Good on you!

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!