Project

General

Profile

Bug #561

Destination address for upgraded port forward is incorrect

Added by Jim Pingle about 10 years ago. Updated almost 10 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
04/30/2010
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Affected Version:
2.0
Affected Architecture:

Description

When a NAT port forward is upgraded from 1.2.3 to 2.0, its destination address is not upgraded correctly, or displayed correctly on the port forward list.

The upgraded entry contains:

<destination>
    <address/>
    <port>6889</port>
</destination>

After saving the entry it shows up properly, and the config looks like this:

<destination>
    <network>wanip</network>
    <port>6889</port>
</destination>

Associated revisions

Revision 743ce9f8 (diff)
Added by Erik Fonnesbeck about 10 years ago

Add upgrade code for values of "Interface address" and "any" for the external address of port forwards. Ticket #561

Revision fcf4e8cd (diff)
Added by Erik Fonnesbeck about 10 years ago

Fix upgrade code for port forwards with "Interface address" set on external address. Ticket #561

History

#1 Updated by Jim Pingle about 10 years ago

  • Subject changed from Destination address on upgraded port forwards is incorrect to Destination address on upgraded port forwards are incorrect

#2 Updated by Jim Pingle about 10 years ago

  • Subject changed from Destination address on upgraded port forwards are incorrect to Destination address for upgraded port forward is incorrect

#3 Updated by Erik Fonnesbeck about 10 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback

It should be correct now, but it needs testing and I am unable to test it at the moment.

#4 Updated by Erik Fonnesbeck about 10 years ago

Added another fix. I used the wrong value name before.

#5 Updated by Seth Mos about 10 years ago

On my upgraded work config I have about ~20 port forwards in total, but all of those use a carp address and did not contain "interface address" or "any". The XML for those 20 looks fine though. And the port forward overview page shows all of them correctly.

#6 Updated by Erik Fonnesbeck about 10 years ago

I think the case of having picked an address from the list was the one case that was already handled correctly; though I didn't test that case to verify.

#7 Updated by Chris Buechler almost 10 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

fixed

Also available in: Atom PDF