denkopf

Tutor

 • 

2 Messages

Wed, Sep 11, 2013 2:02 AM

Motorola NVG589 port forwarding

U Vers replaced my 2-Wire with the  NVG589, I have several security camers installed and i am trying to set up port forwarding for them. They left me no manual. I have tried web searches, nothing. I was able to set the cameras up on the 2-wire, the Foscam web site does not have anything for the 589. on the NVG589 I set up in Nat/gaming what I thought was correct but outside the house I can not gain access. it states "Privite Network" "this camera is on a privite network and will not work". typically when port forwarding it sets up a http address. I cant find where or how it does that.

so I need help please.

dennis

Responses

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

6 years ago


@JefferMC wrote:

@playactn wrote:

First, this Arris device is really obnoxious and I've wasted a lot of time trying to get it working properly with a Tenvis security cam.  That said, I was successful using the NAT/gaming port forwarding.  lapsmith's post helped with some ideas.  I'll try to be concrete with info.

 

My issue was that I could not get the Tenvis webcam accessible from outside the modem (Arris) - I would validate this at http://www.canyouseeme.org/ (port checker).  Here are things I had to do:

 

* In my Tenvis configuration, I set it to a static IP (unchecked DHCP).  Pick a higher IP #, which will become apparent below.

** Also ensure the default gateway and DNS server is correct - for this modem it's 192.168.1.254. Many default devices will have this set to 192.168.1.1 so doublecheck.  W/o this, DDNS will fail (though that doesn't affect f/w accessibility).

* On the modem config, under Home Network->Subnets and DHCP, set the DHCPv4 Start and End range so that your device IP (from bullet 1) is outside/above the end of the range.  e.g. set range from .64 to .100 and have your device set to .115.

* After that, retest that your device is acquiring the static IP by restarting your device (in my case the Tenvis).  Under Device->Device List you can clear the list the scan - your device should appear as "static" next to Allocation.  If not, you didn't set your device properly.

* Now under Firewall->NAT/Gaming you should add your "custom service" then go back and add your hosted application.  This is discussed several times in other posts here so won't rehash (plus if you're reading this thread you've probably tried that a bunch of times already).

*Now test again using http://www.canyouseeme.org/, making sure to enter in the right port from the prior step.  Note this website derives your modem's public IP automatically.

 

This worked for me.  I haven't thought about "why" but it seems like a bug with the firewall and DHCP allocations.

 

I had also tried both passthrough and default server which failed miserably - again there's no reason for those to fail so badly.  I did not futz with another router fyi.

 

Hth, good luck folks.

 

 


I don't see anything in here that is unexpected:

  • You have to tell the camera where the gateway (router) is.  AT&T has chosen to default to 192.168.1.254, while the camera defaults to expecting 192.168.1.1; either could be changed to make the other happy.  Change the camera is the simplest.
  • When you assign the device a static address, you need to put that address outside the range of addresses provided by the gateway via DHCP so that there is no conflict.  
  • You have to tell the Gateway that external requests for a given port need to be directed to the camera's IP address.  Otherwise it doesn't know what to do with it.
  • I do not know why you had to make the device address static vs DHCP issued, other than it may make the process of setting up the port mapping easier.
  • Passthrough is not intended for this situation, though I don't know why it wouldn't work.
  • Default server should also work, but since you still need to create rules to pass traffic, so I don't see the point in doing so vs. Port Forwarding the port the camera needs.

Well, the reason I posted this is because the modem does not work as it should - for myself and many others posting on this thread, the port-forwarding with DHCP addressing is just broken.  Even the passthrough/default-server options did not work and that would be a last resort out of frustration.  This is a workaround utilizes the static IP which is clunky but got the job done.  Had I infinite time, I'd troubleshoot and root cause what is really going on.  

 

Voyager

 • 

1 Message

5 years ago

Hi! 

How are you doing?

Can you please show me how to connect Foscam to the NVG589 to make it work both inside and outside network? Right now I can only view it from  inside of my network.

Thanks alot for your help!

Contributor

 • 

3 Messages

5 years ago

All these posts are very relevant to my situation. Recently got a NVG589 to replace the 2-wire that was working with my foscam IP cam network.

 

It wouldn't open the ports on the public IP addy of the gateway.

 

I had to buckle under and pay for the ATT connect tech. $49.95. I hate being robbed, so I'll give the info away in every forum I find.

 

Port forwarding on NVG589 works for a narrow port range only! 

 

The gem I learned was that the TCP/UDP protocol type used with the custom service definition in NAT/Gaming ONLY WORKS with the ports 81-89.

 

That's it folks! That's the key to the kingdom.

Teacher

 • 

20 Messages

5 years ago

Well, I had Uverse problems galore last week. My modem fried. I no longer have the 2-Wire junk, but this new Motorola 589 everyone raves about.

 

I was looking through some prior posts...can someone please point me to the proper instructions for setting this up? I have  a Q-See 300 series and the instructions are only for the 2-Wire type.

I chose on NAT/Gaming TCP/UDP with a port range of 81-89. Anything else I need to do here?

 

Thanks!

Contributor

 • 

3 Messages

5 years ago

You didn't mention if you assigned each device with it's own custom service that you defined. If you did that and you have verified the port is open from the outside, you are good to go.
I am finding that using the external addy from inside the network still has problems. I can't seem to access the PTZ control. From outside the network it's OK.

Teacher

 • 

20 Messages

5 years ago

You're right, I didn't mention that. At first I didn't do that. I just added one for the DVR. Should I add a port for each camera  (I have 3 )?I still am unsure if I'm doing this correctly, though. I added the service,  and designated the port range of 81-89. But I cannot see it on canyouseeme.org. it shows the port not being available. I can include a screen shot later if that would help. 

Teacher

 • 

20 Messages

5 years ago

I added 3 custom services with 3 differen ports: 81, 83 and 84, ostensibly for each separate camera? That's why that's needed I'm guessing.

I haven't restarted the router. Maybe I need to do that, but nothing is visible on those ports from canyouseeme.org

 

Contributor

 • 

3 Messages

5 years ago

I think the reboot is your fix.

Teacher

 • 

20 Messages

5 years ago

Ok, let me try that.
Thanks.

Voyager

 • 

2 Messages

5 years ago

Please read this...  https://forums.att.com/t5/Residential-Wi-Fi-Gateway/Motorola-NVG589-Port-Forwarding-instructions/m-p/4298199#M19620

 

 

This is my summary (very brief ) of the steps you need to do to get your ports open to see the webserver on your pc (this is what I needed). All the specifics details to each step can be found in this thread. The only part that has always been missing was when you assigj your pc w/ a static ip, you use the primary dns ip under the  "broadband status" tab in your router's webpage (not from the cmd ipconfig /all command - which is the routers ip anyways.) THIS was the only thing I did differently that actually opened up my pc (blue iris webserver) assigned port. yay!

Contributor

 • 

2 Messages

5 years ago

Is there a way on the NVG589 to port forward to a particular MAC address? I have a Mac Mini I'm using for several different services and would prefer to have the Ethernet card handle one set of services and the wireless card another set.
Thanks for any guidance.
JefferMC

ACE - Expert

 • 

17.2K Messages

5 years ago

Well, yes.  Each of the two MAC addresses (one wired, one wireless) should show up in the NVG589's known device list.  You should be able to port forward to the one of your choice.  It's really no different from having two different computers that share a name.

 

Award for Community Excellence 2019 Achiever*
*I am not an AT&T employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Contributor

 • 

1 Message

5 years ago

For many of us who've configured numerous routers over the years, this model is pretty insane even with the manual.

 

The stumper for me for an hour or so was how to add computers to the NAT/Gaming's "Needed by Device" menu. Unlike 99% of other routers I've worked on that let you simply type a LAN IP address to assign a port for port forwarding (aka pinholes, aka NAT/gaming), this insanely designed piece of you-know-what only adds items to the "Needed by Device" menu via its Home Network/IP Allocation table.

 

In other words, if you manually configure a computer with a static IP on your LAN, it'll never show in the "Needed by Device" list nor in the "Home Network/IP Allocation" list, which supplies the items in the "Needed by Device" menu.

 

Insanely, this router requires we leave the desired static computer itself configured as DHCP, then within the NVG-589 ("Not Very Good") router, go to Home Network, IP Allocation, find your computer on the DHCP list then click its "Allocate" button to assign it an IP address from a huge pull-down list, making that assignment pseudo-static. Only then will this "static" (statically allocated from DHCP) computer appear on the router's infamous "Needed by Device" pull-down list. The router assigns that IP address via DHCP to the your computer based on your computer's M.A.C. ID.

 

Rumor has it a Motorola competitor infultrated their design team and added this feature to hurt Motorola (success!) since almost no one can figure out how to add computers to the notorious "Needed by Device" list. 

 

Overall, the NVG589's fatal interface design sin is its insanely buried layered cascading features that cause features on completely different pages to change. It's as if the breakfast, brunch, lunch, happy hour and dinner menus at a restaurant spontaneously changed before your eyes based on the time zone of anyone you think about -- a lousy analogy, so please come up with another.

 

 

Contributor

 • 

1 Message

4 years ago

You got the right point in this whole unattended (by ATT) forum. Every customer wants a help and you don't get it from them: ATT SUCK BADLY, THAT'S THE MAIN POINT. They get everybody upset at the time you need help. They gain so easily 'free' enemies within their customers, up to the point of focus of nothing else, happy to get rid of their service from themselves, and anybody else in their path and give it to some else. I am working as IT here in this country for the last 20 years, and ever since I moved every single customer that crossed my service to move (not only convince) to other ISP. And still all these years, they don't even move a blink of an eyes to have better service. This  forum is enough prove that this still happen nationwide. They don't provide someone saying: hey! you got a problem?, contact us at (blabla@att.com) and we will help you! Yesterday a customer had the bad luck ATT changed their router for the newest NVG599, and guest what? I spent an hour (with around 17 years experience with A/DSL router's systems since it showed up on the market). Never/ever had a problem with routers to set them up for surveillance cameras, remote control, etc, etc. I got the DVRs getting the external (wan) ip from the router, but won't allow connection from outside. I couldn't find out why, since all other routers of the same type (commercial) from other ISPs don't block ANYTHING when the device get WAN IP. The point is: they show that they don't give a s# about customers' problems. That's the main issue. Besides that, any other ISP gives far more bandwidth thatn them for far less amount of money. Period.

Contributor

 • 

1 Message

4 years ago

Received a new NVG589 and for the past 2 months have been trying to view my camera system from outside the house. I am unable to port forward the camera system, I have tried all the tips listed here in this thread. I just got off the phone with AT&T, and after the customer service I just received I think it will be easier to just cancel 2 cell phones, U-Verse and internet. 

 

Why do they make this so difficult?

 

Would even be willing to pay someone get this set up!!

 

FRUSTRATED!!!