Project

General

Profile

Bug #561

Destination address for upgraded port forward is incorrect

Added by Jim Pingle about 9 years ago. Updated about 9 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 9 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 9 years ago

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

History

#1 Updated by Jim Pingle about 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 years ago

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

#5 Updated by Seth Mos about 9 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 9 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 about 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

fixed

Also available in: Atom PDF