Xbox Live

Please make Xbox live work properly thru NAT.

cant you just forward the xbox ports?

Yeah, I would think just port forwarding and giving the Xbox a static IP would make this work.

my point being that if you have the SM with NAT disabled and you hook up any consumer router (linksys, dlink, netgear etc.) Xbox live works without any port forwarding or any other config changes.

if you connect the xbox to the SM with NAT enabled either directly or thru a router xbox live won’t connect.

therefore the only way to accomplish connecting an xbox to xbox live is to disable NAT and give the client a static IP. I would prefer to just leave NAT enabled on the SM. this cuts down on user config errors with their router, broadcast storms etc. etc.

Xbox live works thru NAT on any other router. it doesn’t work thru the canopy NAT.

very similar to PPTP connections that used to not work and moto finally fixed that issue. This last issue would prevent us from assign static IPs to most everyone and save us time and $$$.

Until Canopy NAT utilizes UPnP that won’t happen. Personally I don’t want to see it happen. If you need advanced features, buy a router.

One workaround that has been claimed to work is by setting your Canopy device to only hand out 1 IP address from its DHCP server, and to put that lone IP address as the DMZ address. You get some text complaining about the issue but it still assigns and DMZ’s the address. This would effectively eliminate port forwarding issues to the device.

I tried the DMZ route and it still doesn’t work with Xbox live. not sure why.

Like i said it does work if you bridge the SM and install a router so that’s what we run with.

Since this is the “suggestions” forum this is one thing that would help our business and eliminate a lot of tech support calls so that is why i suggested that the feature be added.

wifiguy wrote:
If you need advanced features, buy a router.


Agreed, but is a connecting an XBox to the Internet that uncommon or advanced?

It’s certainly far from uncommon, however I would say any time you are connecting a computer AND another device you are setting up an “advanced” network for the user, as opposed to a “simple” one device network. If they are only connecting an Xbox to the connection, what’s the harm in giving the Xbox a public IP?

We’re really arguing personal philosophy at this point though. I’m one that likes to keep my modem as simple as possible - its only concern should be bridging the devices behind it to the internet. The more you expect from it, the more prone to failure it is (both code failure and hardware). We also give out free routers with two of our three internet packages so NAT isn’t as big of a deal.

I can see your point and appreciate seano’s problem, so maybe the best compromise (as was pointed out, this is a suggestion forum) that UPnP be added as an optional feature (meaning it is disabled by default) to the NAT engine.

wifiguy wrote:
We're really arguing personal philosophy at this point though. I'm one that likes to keep my modem as simple as possible - its only concern should be bridging the devices behind it to the internet. The more you expect from it, the more prone to failure it is (both code failure and hardware).

Asbolutely, all I need is VLAN capability and some QoS mechanisms. To be honest I don't "trust" features that are not one company's primary business, like routing done by some RF people.
wifiguy wrote:
maybe the best compromise that UPnP be added as an optional feature (meaning it is disabled by default) to the NAT engine.

I don't see how anybody could complain about that!

we have several customer who don’t connect anything other than an Xbox to their connection. (i know seems crazy to me too but they do) In fact the only reason they ordered service from us because they bought the Xbox and wanted to connect to the Xbox live service for netflix and the online gaming.

I personally don’t like giving a real routable IP to anything other than a router or the SM with NAT turned on. In 8 years of business we have never had a broadcast storm. (knock on wood) Also when they are switching from comcast or qwest they don’t understand why they have to fiddle with the settings in their router on our network but they didn’t have to on the other provider’s networks.

I started this thread because it is becoming more and more of an issue for us. streaming video from netflix is very popular on our network and it will only increase with time. the Xbox is the main platform for accessing netflix online since most every household already has an Xbox. many people have already or are planning on ditching cable and satellite service and get all their TV over the internet (myself included). As an network owner/operator anything that makes the process of customer acquisition easier make us more money which allows us to deploy a bigger faster better network etc.

I also realize that the canopy SM is first and foremost an awesome radio. I’m also glad that moto has added some layer3 functionality because that makes things easier. there is only so much processing power available and most all of the processing power is and should be dedicated to the radio. however, we kept hounding moto to make PPTP, VLANs, QoS, PPPoE (plus a whole lot more) available on the SM and they eventually did. none of those features were available in version 7.3.6 but we have them now. I personally don’t use all of those features on our network but it’s nice that they are available because other operators desperately need them.

just my 2 cents :slight_smile:

We provide a dlink to all our customers, we maintain and manage the dlinkt hrough remote access, customer has no control over the dlink. Never had a complaint about connecting to xbox.