Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

How to Set-up Port Forwarding: BF1942/Ubee Cable Modem?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 09 January 2017 - 04:27 PM

PortForward.com lists several ports and I'm pretty sure most aren't necessary for basic game play.  The Ubee Cable Modem gives the option for a "range" but not for multiple, single ports.

Do I make 6+ different Port Forward "rules", one big-huge range, or what?

Also I don't understand the Local Start/End port vs. External Start/End port.  I would assume they would always be the same so why make the User manually type them in when they are always going to be the same?  Or are they not always the same?

 

 

Attached Files



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Trikein

Trikein

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, US

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:06 PM

In this case, local and external ports should be the same. For a range, using 23000-23009 as a example,

 

Local Start port 23000

Local End Port 23009

External Start Port 23000

External End Port 23009

Protocal UDP

Enabled On

 

If the ports are singular, then have the start port and end port be the same. It is better to make separate rules for each set of ports, that way you apply custom QoS rules easier if you need to.


Edited by Trikein, 09 January 2017 - 10:07 PM.


#3 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:33 PM

In this case, local and external ports should be the same. For a range, using 23000-23009 as a example,

 

Local Start port 23000

Local End Port 23009

External Start Port 23000

External End Port 23009

Protocal UDP

Enabled On

 

If the ports are singular, then have the start port and end port be the same. It is better to make separate rules for each set of ports, that way you apply custom QoS rules easier if you need to.

Thanks for that.  I'll do as you suggest and report results.

 

Can you explain Port Forwarding to me?  Or at least let me know if I get it right?  As I understand it, what Port Forwarding is, is when traffic from "the internet" comes in on a particular port (23000), the "forwarding" rule passes that traffic automatically to the specific computer at the (local) IP Address specified.  What I really want to know is, what happens if there isn't any Port Forwarding set-up?  I don't have it set up now, but the game still works.  But I have high ping on some servers and so I wonder if maybe the cable modem is "confused" about where to send the traffic from the game server, and maybe that is the reason for the delay.



#4 Trikein

Trikein

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, US
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:52 PM

The easiest way I have come to think about port forwarding is like having a receptionist/secretary answering phones in a office. If someone calls the receptionist, and asks for "Bob", they forward the call to Bob's exstention in his office. In this example, the receptionist is your router, Bob phone is your computer, and the phone number for the office is your router's public IP. Port forwarding is setting up rules in the router to automatically forward any incoming traffic to the private IP of a PC on your network based on the port that request is asking for. 

 

The reason it works without port forwarding, is the router also has something called Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) which is a protocol designed to map all outgoing requests and tagging it in such a way that the router knows who it is for when it comes back in. UPnP is difficult to explain in layman terms because it has many elements that make it work. The problem with UPnP is it takes up more resources then simple port forwarding. Imagine a receptionist with a list of people's names and their phone extensions, and then imagine another one that has to monitor every outgoing call to see who they are talking to, so when that person calls back, the receptionist knows who to send it to. The second method takes much more effort and time, and is also more prone to human error. In our example, human error is room for exploit, which makes UPnP a security vulnerability. So UPnP is easier to use, but a little more taxing on your router and less secure overall. 



#5 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 10 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

The reason it works without port forwarding, is the router also has something called Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) which is a protocol designed to map all outgoing requests and tagging it in such a way that the router knows who it is for when it comes back in. UPnP is difficult to explain in layman terms because it has many elements that make it work. The problem with UPnP is it takes up more resources then simple port forwarding. Imagine a receptionist with a list of people's names and their phone extensions, and then imagine another one that has to monitor every outgoing call to see who they are talking to, so when that person calls back, the receptionist knows who to send it to. The second method takes much more effort and time, and is also more prone to human error. In our example, human error is room for exploit, which makes UPnP a security vulnerability. So UPnP is easier to use, but a little more taxing on your router and less secure overall. 

 

Thanks so does the UPnP method slow down game play?  Specifically "Ping"?  I keep getting kicked due to high ping.



#6 Trikein

Trikein

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, US

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:14 PM

Alot of it depends on how the game handles match making so it comes down to trial and error. Try setting up port forwarding and then disable UPnP and see if your latency improves. Also see how other traffic on the network effects your latency. If you notice it spike way up any time a certian user or device uses the internet, you might be able to set up QoS to give you a little bit of a edge. However most latency occurs between your router and the rest of the internet. What games do you play? A tracert to the game server would tell you alot about where the latency is occuring.



#7 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 11 January 2017 - 10:38 PM

 

 

I only play BF1942.  It's my one vice. I waste too much time on one game as it is.  I'll look into the tracert suggestion and report back.



#8 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:58 PM

Here are two tracerts to the BF1942 Server I have the most trouble with.  I noticed #10 "timed out", so I did a 2nd one, which also "timed out" at #10.
 
What does this mean?

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms     <1 ms  chAdmin [192.168.0.1]
  2    12 ms     9 ms        10 ms  cpe-66-25-160-1.satx.res.rr.com [66.25.160.1]
  3   369 ms   332 ms    312 ms  tge0-0-9.snautxep01h.texas.rr.com [24.28.135.193]
  4    12 ms    11 ms       33 ms  agg65.snantxvy01r.texas.rr.com [24.175.33.248]
  5   203 ms   172 ms    182 ms  agg23.dllatxl301r.texas.rr.com [24.175.32.146]
  6   307 ms   275 ms    240 ms  bu-ether14.dllstx976iw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.88]
  7    17 ms    19 ms       20 ms  0.ae1.pr1.dfw10.tbone.rr.com [107.14.17.234]
  8    17 ms    19 ms      16 ms  107.14.16.201
  9    58 ms     60 ms      54 ms  TenGE0-1-0-0.br03.lax04.pccwbtn.net [63.218.50.53]
 10     *        *        *     Request timed out.

 11   422 ms   442 ms   399 ms  168.235.94.165

 

 

 

 

 
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  chAdmin [192.168.0.1]
  2    16 ms    14 ms    15 ms  cpe-66-25-160-1.satx.res.rr.com [66.25.160.1]
  3   926 ms  1022 ms  1054 ms  tge0-0-9.snautxep01h.texas.rr.com [24.28.135.193]
  4    11 ms    10 ms    10 ms  agg65.snantxvy01r.texas.rr.com [24.175.33.248]
  5    97 ms    96 ms    92 ms  agg23.dllatxl301r.texas.rr.com [24.175.32.146]
  6   425 ms   379 ms   360 ms  bu-ether14.dllstx976iw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.88]
  7    18 ms    20 ms    23 ms  0.ae1.pr1.dfw10.tbone.rr.com [107.14.17.234]
  8    16 ms    16 ms    22 ms  107.14.16.201
  9    57 ms    54 ms    59 ms  TenGE0-1-0-0.br03.lax04.pccwbtn.net [63.218.50.53]
 10     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 11   607 ms   687 ms   762 ms  168.235.94.165

 

 



#9 Trikein

Trikein

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, US
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 14 January 2017 - 12:16 AM

I see a couple things going on. First I see some minor latency jitter of 9-16ms between hop 1 and 2. This is usually the connection between the cable modem and RR's cable modem system(CMTS). I also see some ICMP depriorization between hop 2 and 3, and hop 5 and 6. Both of these are fairly typical but of note. The main issue is hop 10, which is adding a almost half second (500+) of latency. Seems like a problem on the server's end, specifically between the server and their ISP. Do other users have the same issues?

 

Have you tried a different server? Are there any you can ping at less then 100ms?


Edited by Trikein, 14 January 2017 - 12:20 AM.


#10 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 14 January 2017 - 01:17 AM

 

C:\Windows\system32>tracert 188.165.220.115
 
Tracing route to team-simple.fr [188.165.220.115]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  chAdmin [192.168.0.1]
  2     9 ms    12 ms    10 ms  cpe-66-25-160-1.satx.res.rr.com [66.25.160.1]
  3   174 ms   157 ms   174 ms  tge0-0-8.snautxep01h.texas.rr.com [24.28.133.201]
  4    13 ms    10 ms    13 ms  agg65.snantxvy01r.texas.rr.com [24.175.33.248]
  5    21 ms    23 ms    23 ms  agg23.dllatxl301r.texas.rr.com [24.175.32.146]
  6   166 ms   196 ms   176 ms  bu-ether14.dllstx976iw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.88]
  7    19 ms    17 ms    19 ms  4.68.72.117
  8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  9   387 ms   423 ms   618 ms  be100-104.nwk-1-a9.nj.us [192.99.146.253]
 10   751 ms   629 ms   827 ms  be100-1295.ldn-1-a9.uk.eu [192.99.146.126]
 11   941 ms   764 ms   456 ms  be11-1187.rbx-g1-a9.fr.eu [91.121.128.86]
 12   318 ms   276 ms   284 ms  vl20.rbx-g1-a75.fr.eu [188.165.9.93]
 13   175 ms   165 ms   161 ms  po6.vss-4-6k.routers.ovh.net [94.23.122.160]
 14   733 ms   702 ms   590 ms  team-simple.fr [188.165.220.115]
 
Trace complete.
 
C:\Windows\system32>tracert 188.165.220.115
 
Tracing route to team-simple.fr [188.165.220.115]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  chAdmin [192.168.0.1]
  2    12 ms    13 ms    10 ms  cpe-66-25-160-1.satx.res.rr.com [66.25.160.1]
  3   109 ms    97 ms    93 ms  tge0-0-8.snautxep01h.texas.rr.com [24.28.133.201]
  4     9 ms    12 ms    10 ms  agg65.snantxvy01r.texas.rr.com [24.175.33.248]
  5    18 ms    24 ms    23 ms  agg23.dllatxl301r.texas.rr.com [24.175.32.146]
  6    79 ms    78 ms    92 ms  bu-ether14.dllstx976iw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.88]
  7    17 ms    15 ms    18 ms  4.68.72.117
  8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  9   896 ms   819 ms   624 ms  be100-104.nwk-1-a9.nj.us [192.99.146.253]
 10   684 ms   698 ms   436 ms  be100-1295.ldn-1-a9.uk.eu [192.99.146.126]
 11   591 ms   689 ms   821 ms  be11-1187.rbx-g1-a9.fr.eu [91.121.128.86]
 12   303 ms   304 ms   314 ms  vl20.rbx-g1-a75.fr.eu [188.165.9.93]
 13   163 ms   164 ms   160 ms  po6.vss-4-6k.routers.ovh.net [94.23.122.160]
 14   682 ms   540 ms   573 ms  team-simple.fr [188.165.220.115]
 
Trace complete.

 

 

Okay so this is to a different BF1942 Server.  I think it's based in France.  I don't play it very often because most of the Players are French, and speak French, which I don't.  I did two iterations of the test because these results seem strange to me also, but in a different way.

 

I made sure to have my file-sharing program turned off, but Chrome was open with about 15 windows open.  Could my computer be causing these slow times?  I've looked at Task Manager>Resource Monitor to find some program that might be hogging CPU, memory and/or bandwidth and could not find anything.  Also, FYI these high pings are intermittent.  Sometimes they are "moderate" high (playable), and sometimes they are extremely high (immediate kick from Server).

 

Also, FYI my cable to the modem goes from a terminal just outside my back fence and it is barely buried in the dirt, less than 2".  Some places it sit's on top of the dirt (exposed by rain).  I had it replaced last year for this reason, and when they "buried" it, they did just as bad a job the 2nd time as they did the 1st.  I wonder sometimes if the cable's insulation has been compromised and if I should call TWC (Spectrum) and have them replace it a 3rd time.  Is this something that TWC can "see" remotely (if there's excessive noise on the line, signal strength fluctuation, drops, or whatever)?


Edited by Aaron_Warrior, 14 January 2017 - 01:20 AM.


#11 Trikein

Trikein

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, US

Posted 14 January 2017 - 01:31 AM

I think you should focus on playing with people in the same country as you. Even at the speed of light, it takes time for the signal to get from Texas US to France. Ironically, given the game, the same thing that kept the US out of WW1 is the same thing causing your problem; the North Atlantic Ocean.

 

On top of that, there seems to be congestion on the handoff between Level3 and OVH hosting, that handles the connection between Canada and the UK. However given the long trip, that may be the most effective route. Do you have any tracert showing a connection to that server that is better? Do you have any friends in your area that play on the same servers without the problem?



#12 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 14 January 2017 - 03:52 AM

I think you should focus on playing with people in the same country as you. Even at the speed of light, it takes time for the signal to get from Texas US to France. Ironically, given the game, the same thing that kept the US out of WW1 is the same thing causing your problem; the North Atlantic Ocean.

 

On top of that, there seems to be congestion on the handoff between Level3 and OVH hosting, that handles the connection between Canada and the UK. However given the long trip, that may be the most effective route. Do you have any tracert showing a connection to that server that is better? Do you have any friends in your area that play on the same servers without the problem?

Okay so like I said, I don't play that Server.  You asked for a Tracert to another Server and so I go you one.  I don't have any friends that play this game.  It's 20 years old.  An antique.  There's a few "nostalgia" players around the world.  I only play on the Server in the 1st Tracert.  I did a "Who Is" and I think the Server is physically in Georgia, which is within the US. I just need to know if it's my computer, the cable and/or cable modem, or the Server, or what.



#13 Trikein

Trikein

  • Members
  • 1,321 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, US
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 14 January 2017 - 10:17 AM

Then unfortunately I don't see any way to resolve your problem other then suggesting looking for other servers. Maybe try here? The first tracert showed a issue between the server's host, RamNode, and their provider BTN(AKA PCCW). I dug a little deeper and hopped on RamNode's ICQ and 168.235.94.165 seems to be in LA/USA on node LASKVMS3 which looks to be having some issues as per here. If you know the people running the server, they might be able to fix the issue, but there is nothing you can do on your side. The issue seems intermittent. Last night when pinging the server I saw the problem, but now the latency between hop 10 and 11 is better. Also notice PCCW is routing me differently to their server at the last hop.

 

Tracing route to 168.235.94.165 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1   131 ms     1 ms     1 ms  router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]

  2     3 ms     4 ms     5 ms  lo0-100.PRVDRI-VFTTP-315.verizon-gni.net [72.92.234.1]

  3    24 ms     7 ms    11 ms  B3315.PRVDRI-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net [100.41.0.144]

  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.

  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.

  6    13 ms    14 ms    14 ms  0.ae2.BR2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [140.222.229.93]

  7    13 ms    14 ms    14 ms  63-218-223-53.static.pccwglobal.net [63.218.223.53]

  8    88 ms    86 ms    86 ms  TenGE0-2-0-3.br03.lax04.pccwbtn.net [63.218.50.118]

  9    87 ms    87 ms    84 ms  TenGE0-2-0-3.br03.lax04.pccwbtn.net [63.218.50.118]

 10     *        *        *     Request timed out.

 11    86 ms    86 ms    86 ms  168.235.94.165

Trace complete.

 

If it was the other traces, and the issue was a bad route, then you might be able to improve it with a VPN to force the traffic a different route. However without any other data to compare the trace to, I can't say it's a bad route. VPN also slow throughput, even if they improve latency, which has it's own problems. Finally, good VPN usually cost money. 



#14 Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

Guest_Aaron_Warrior_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:44 AM

Then unfortunately I don't see any way to resolve your problem other then suggesting looking for other servers. Maybe try here? The first tracert showed a issue between the server's host, RamNode, and their provider BTN(AKA PCCW). I dug a little deeper and hopped on RamNode's ICQ and 168.235.94.165 seems to be in LA/USA on node LASKVMS3 which looks to be having some issues as per here. If you know the people running the server, they might be able to fix the issue, but there is nothing you can do on your side. The issue seems intermittent. Last night when pinging the server I saw the problem, but now the latency between hop 10 and 11 is better. Also notice PCCW is routing me differently to their server at the last hop.

 

Tracing route to 168.235.94.165 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1   131 ms     1 ms     1 ms  router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]

  2     3 ms     4 ms     5 ms  lo0-100.PRVDRI-VFTTP-315.verizon-gni.net [72.92.234.1]

  3    24 ms     7 ms    11 ms  B3315.PRVDRI-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net [100.41.0.144]

  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.

  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.

  6    13 ms    14 ms    14 ms  0.ae2.BR2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [140.222.229.93]

  7    13 ms    14 ms    14 ms  63-218-223-53.static.pccwglobal.net [63.218.223.53]

  8    88 ms    86 ms    86 ms  TenGE0-2-0-3.br03.lax04.pccwbtn.net [63.218.50.118]

  9    87 ms    87 ms    84 ms  TenGE0-2-0-3.br03.lax04.pccwbtn.net [63.218.50.118]

 10     *        *        *     Request timed out.

 11    86 ms    86 ms    86 ms  168.235.94.165

Trace complete.

 

If it was the other traces, and the issue was a bad route, then you might be able to improve it with a VPN to force the traffic a different route. However without any other data to compare the trace to, I can't say it's a bad route. VPN also slow throughput, even if they improve latency, which has it's own problems. Finally, good VPN usually cost money. 

 

Thanks, I'm still fighting with this.  The latency issues seem to be worse during the evening.  Usually when I come here I'm mad and hard to talk to, but not right now. Eating dinner.

 

So the last few days I went through all the Windows Services using Black Viper's list as a guide, hoping to turn something off that is causing the problem and immediately well okay so let me explain.

 

When playing BF1942 you are given a list of servers and other information like IP Address and Ping.  Number or players  and what map they are running.  And these columns are "listable" so you can click "Ping" and get all the Servers listed from lowest ping (usually around 50 ms) to highest ping (could be as high as 700 ms).  Immediately after going through all the Windows Services, I lost about 200 ms on all the various Servers.  Servers that were usually around 300 were around 100, etc...  So I thought I fixed it.  It was 2:00 a.m CDT.

 

Next day, 5:00 pm.  Same thing. Half the Servers ping is 400 or higher.  It's not my wireless.  I disconnected it completely and it doesn't change a thing.  So it's either my computer (somehow) or half the BF1942 servers are too slow to play, but only for me, and only during the evening.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users