options: ext_ip_reserved_ignore support

[ptpt52]

add an option to ignore even if ext_ip is reserved

this make the port forwarding force to work when the router is behind NAT

[pali]

Function addr_is_reserved checks if address is external public or not and based on it construct reply for GetExternalIPAddress UPnP XML function. So this patch breaks GetExternalIPAddress function and it returns nonsense/incorrect reply.

Have you tested this change? I'm guess that not because miniupnpc at the first stage checks that GetExternalIPAddress returns correct value which results that miniupnpc would be confused or not work.

And even that port forwarding obviously does not work behind NAT (with small exception when full cone NAT 1:1 is used).

I do not know what @miniupnp thinks about it, but this patch does not make sense at all.

[pali]

@miniupnp: maybe you should comment this pull request...

[miniupnp]

addr_is_reserved() behavior should not be changed.

[pali]

Any updates in this pull request? Based on my above comments, I do not think that pull request should be merged... so it can be closed?

[ptpt52]

so there is no possible to add DNAT rule if router has no public ip? this seems not true in real world

[pali]

See my comment, it is working fine if you are behind Full Cone NAT 1:1. Just you need to supply public IP address which is required by UPnP protocol. It can be done either automatically by reading it from wan interface or by discovery via stun code when ext_perform_stun=yes is set or manually by command line argument -o or by config option ext_ip.

[pali]

@miniupnp I think you should close this pull request. People now started reporting bugs against this patch (like this) as openwrt already expressed that do not maintain this custom patch. It looks like that openwrt has misconfigured iptables/routing (like can be seen in this patch and links from it) which caused issues in miniupnpd and they are trying to hack them by patch like this one.

[pali]

Patch in this pull request is causing more issues (e.g. openwrt/packages#15258 or #546 openwrt/packages#14031 (comment)) and OpenWRT now decided to disable this option by default due to lot of bug reports openwrt/packages#15759

[ptpt52]

close this.

addr_is_reserved() behavior should not be changed.

[sky96111]

addr_is_reserved() behavior should not be changed.

@miniupnp Double NAT are quite common in China. Because optical modem provided by ISP are defaulted with router function and can not be disabled by us. Though we can config DMZ or port forwarding to expose the second router to the public net, miniupnpd can only get Intranet IP and return "addr_is_reserved".

[choyri]

Especially for China Mobile, the IP obtained by household PPPoE is all private address. 😞 so sad

[sky96111]

Especially for China Mobile, the IP obtained by household PPPoE is all private address. so sad

In that case, UPnP still cannot work enen if miniUPnP allow this behaviour. Or you will need to ask ISP to forward your port, but actually it is impossible.
This change only breaks double NAT. For those who can only get a private address from ISP... This breaks nothing.

如果你的光猫也只能从运营商得到一个内网IP，即使这个软件不限制，你的UPnP是不成功的。
那个commit对中国用户有影响，但影响的用户是：光猫拨号能获得外网IP，在光猫上通过端口转发或DMZ把二级路由暴露在了公网上，但是二级路由只能获得光猫分配的内网IP导致miniUPnP拒绝了UPnP。
如果打电话给运营商也不提供公网IP，那换联通电信吧。

[miniupnp]

If you only have a Private address, you have not a routable address so using UPnP IGD is pointless.
I hope you still have a routable IPv6 address.

[pali]

Obviously if you have only private IPv4 address from CGNAT then UPnP IGD services for port forwarding (like miniupnpd) will never work. To make it work you have to run miniupnpd on that CGNAT machine.

So if you do not have publicly routable IPv4 address then ask for block of routable IPv6 addresses.

But note that IPv4 multi-NAT setup with miniupnpd in cascade (when on every IPv4 CG/NAT router is running miniunpd) is not supported yet by miniupnpd yet, there is open feature request for it #299

[Neustradamus]

There is a new patch from @ptpt52:

• miniupnpd: add force_forwarding option support openwrt/packages#16011 (comment)

It replaces the old OpenWrt patch: 301-ext_ip_reserved_ignore.patch.

Tested by @openips!

[openips]

if you use miniupnpd as router with more than one isp like me , you can get private ip and public ip at same time.
so miniupnpd work with the public ip and not work with the private ip is necessary.
the new patch let miniupnpd can work in this situation and tested by me.
great work and thanks a lot