-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 442
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Behind CGNAT: "Found a (not connected?) IGD : http://192.168.1.254:5000/ctl/IPConn" ... command line options order does matter #647
Comments
Changelog:
sourcecode:
|
Ugly hack: rewriting i from 2 to 1:
... and I have it working, including
So ... maybe use the "-i" ignore to ignore the i == 2? |
Ah ... ? The ignore should already do that ... but the order on the commandline matters? With plain, stock upnpc:
Good order:
Bad (?) order:
|
Ah, not a bug, but ... as specified?
A bit confusing for a noob like me. It would be nice if upnpc would detect & warn for wrong order. Or even just handle it nicely. |
With a few lines of code, I now have a @miniupnp Thomas, are you interested in a PR?
|
... or print the standard usage error message if there is a option parameter after a command
|
In almost 18 years, you are the first to make such a bug report 😆 Please note that the |
Hahaha. Just like a certain Linus Torvals said in 1991: "a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.". And see how that evolved! ;-) |
I'm behind CGNAT (so: a 100.64.x.y address on the WAN-interface of my router / NAT).
I get this:
So based on the source code:
... I tried with the "-i" ignore option, but still an error:
Still "No valid UPNP Internet Gateway Device found.". Is that correct? Port forwarding can still be useful behind CGNAT.
Is this something miniupnp decides ("no public WAN IP, so no Internet Gateway Device"?)? Or does my NAT decide that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: