Hi all, we have a 7200s and are trying to get the DM to work remotely. Unfortunately there is something else using port 21 for a different ftp service.
Is there a trick to getting the voicemail to accept communication on a port other than 21? I've tried just changing the port in link control and making am entry in the firewall but still get no joy.
Thanks in advance
What version software? Do you have the whitelist set up with your IP address? Do you have port forwarding with the new port set up in the firewall?
Hi John,
4.99
Yes, the whitelist is set up and the firewall rules are in place.
I can get to the System Parameters for the voicemail but it comes up with an FTP error.
What substitute port did you use for FTP instead of 21?
As a test have you tried to put the IP address of the Samsung in the DMZ or tried putting 255.255.255.255 in the whitelist? You do have the external IP address you are trying to connect from in the white list? Perhaps 2121 is blocked by the ISP?
@ John,
I did try the 255.255.255.255 in the management and DM whitelists and that didn't make a difference.
I suppose it could be blocked but Shaw doesn't block any others to my knowledge.
-W
Nameless might be able to chime in here as I remember him telling me a while ago that this can't be done. Something about the officeserv doesn't understand this type of NAT port redirection. I know for sure I've never been able to get it to work.
The FTP redirect does work for me. I have it in use at a location that's not near our office. I just used port 31021 in DM and at the local router/firewall, did a translation to push that through to port 21 of the ip for the 7100 and it worked for me. Then again, depends on the firewall that you are using as well if it can do NAT or port triggering to be able to translate the port from xxxxx to 21.
To understand in your DM you have Ftp as 31021. Then in the clients router you say when you see xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx coming in on port 31021 route it to the local Os address port 21. Is that correct?
Yes that is correct. Just depends if the firewall/router can actually handle that sort of nat addressing.