XBox Live problem - 2wire NAT is not open

---

@Ponzi wrote:

---

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
They have updated a lot due to kinect, and because technology has changed over the past couple years.

---

OK, that's a generally true statement. But you didn't answer the question I posed.

 

Exactly which Xbox updates released since 2011 would have rendered Microsoft's current recommendations about port-forwarding outdated? That's your claim. If you can't support the claim you made with any specificity, then you shouldn't discourage people from following Microsoft's own recommendations to solve NAT problems.

---

I don't have an XBox, but I would definately follow microsoft's recommendation since it's their product.

---

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
I wouldn't, because first it is not Microsoft's recommendation, and two it is Microsoft. Nothing really more to say, than itheir products are no more secure than leaving food out on the table, when you are in an area that is known for bear attacks. Pretty much the same concept, called common sense.

---

Unbelievable. Greg, please stop spreading misinformation based upon any prejudice you may have against Microsoft. This is indeed Microsoft's recommendation:

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-live/connecting/network-ports-used-xbox-live

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-live/connecting/nat-type-strict

---

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
I wouldn't, because first it is not Microsoft's recommendation, and two it is Microsoft. Nothing really more to say, than itheir products are no more secure than leaving food out on the table, when you are in an area that is known for bear attacks. Pretty much the same concept, called common sense.

---

I think the one thing we know for sure is that in gregzoll's mind his opinion is law 

---

@nephipower wrote:

---

@gregzoll_1 wrote:
I wouldn't, because first it is not Microsoft's recommendation, and two it is Microsoft. Nothing really more to say, than itheir products are no more secure than leaving food out on the table, when you are in an area that is known for bear attacks. Pretty much the same concept, called common sense.

---

I think the one thing we know for sure is that in gregzoll's mind his opinion is law 

---

No, it is that I know what the Frick I am talking about, when it comes to hooking up these game platforms to routers, and the security risks involved with opening ports out of Stealth to the Internet for all to see possible ways into your LAN.

Gregzoll_1,

After reading your responses to this thread, I'm now of the opinion that not all A.C.E. recipients are created equal. I find the other award recipients very helpful to this community, but you've now made my "ignore list." (It's a bit inaccurate to call it a "list" since there's only one name on it.)

The original poster seems to have disappeared from this sorry thread. I assume he's gotten his Xbox issues worked out. And I'm finished trying to correct misinformation.

Dear Community Members,

This thread is taking a different direction from the original topic. Please avoid any personal attacks or criticism.

While we encourage debates and discussions, we would like it to be carried out in a climate of mutual respect.

Let's remember to stay on topic.

Thanks,

Phil-101
Community Moderator

SomeJoe,

Thanks for your thorough analysis. For someone who doesn't even have an Xbox, you obviously put a lot of time into researching it. I don't know as much about networking as you do, but I did find this article about Port 53 and why at least that author recommends opening it to deal with future IPv6 DNS replies, among other things. I don't think IPv6 support has been implemented in the U-verse RGs yet, so AT&T may address the issue discussed in the article in any firmware update that implements it. Additionally, I'm not saying this is why Microsoft recommends opening Port 53; I don't know why they do.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/allow-both-tcp-and-udp-port-53-your-dns-serve

But I completely agree that you should only open those ports that are necessary to get the Xbox working properly. I'm not aware of any reported instances of an Xbox-connected system ever being compromised with the ports open in the manner recommended by Microsoft, but if not opening Port 53 works, then so much the better.

Hi Ponzi,

Yes, the article is correct about allowing port 53, both TCP and UDP, for proper DNS operation with DNSSEC and IPv6.  However, this only applies to DNS servers which are behind a firewall, not DNS clients.

The XBox's use of port 53 (just like any other computer on your home network) is limited to DNS client functionality only.  In other words, the XBox asks a DNS server out on the Internet to resolve a host name.  This is an outbound connection, and the port will be opened automatically on any NAT router for both TCP and UDP connections, as well as IPv6 connections when that gets implemented.

No requests will be incoming to the XBox on port 53, so we do not need to manually open the port.

---

@SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Hi Ponzi,

Yes, the article is correct about allowing port 53, both TCP and UDP, for proper DNS operation with DNSSEC and IPv6.  However, this only applies to DNS servers which are behind a firewall, not DNS clients.

 

---

SomeJoe,

Thanks. Got it. Didn't see that the article applied to servers only.

Darn, wish I would have found this earlier. I had to figure it out, but it is exactly what I did. Thanx SomeJoe for posting the detailed instructions for others.

I am guessing that Greg does not run multiple gaming consoles at the same time nor does his son actually try to join someones game.  I am having the issue of haveing one open NAT and one strict NAT.  I can open the ports but it seems to only allow me to assign it to one of the xboxes and not both as if I try to assign the setting s to both I get an error stating those settings are already assigned.

Sooooo doeas anyone know how to get an open NAT for 2 xboxes at the same time? 

Thanks

A port can only be assigned to one internal address at a time.  Think about what this does techincally, and you'll understand why:  An unsolicited connection arrives at the RG.  It has the RG's public address and a port number.  The RG has to decide where to send it.  It has no other information than the port, so the port has to tell it where to send the packet.

The only way around this would be to purchase a package of static addresses.  Then you could assign a static address to each XBOX.