Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Lightbulb

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

ID Verified
Lifetime subscriber

#311124 16-Dec-2023 12:16
Send private message

I've been puzzling over this for days and have come to a complete dead-end.

 

I have a couple of Synology NAS's in different locations.  I'm trying to get a hyper backup going from one NAS to the other using a reverse proxy.  The backup works just fine without the reverse proxy - using port 6281 which has been port forwarded on the destination router.

 

Reverse proxy works just fine for logging into the web server - using port 443 as the source and port 5001 as the destination - with port 443 forwarded on the destination router to the local ip address of the destination NAS.

 

However, a similar approach for hyper backup throws up the following message:

 

"Failed to connect to the destination server. Please check the following and try again: The destination server is connected to an active server (which it is!), The network backup port forwarding rules have been configured on the destination server (port 443 has been forwarded on the destination router to the local ip address of the NAS).

 

The firewall rules on the destination NAS have been changed to allolw ports 443 and 6281 through (I have also turned off the firewall on the destination NAS, but this makes no difference).

 

The certificate on the destination NAS has been obtained from Lets Encrypt - shown on the default certificate as hyper.xxxx.synology.me, including a wild card *.hyper.xxxx.synology.me.

 

My router is an Edgerouter - I haven't changed any of the standard settings, except the firewall portforwarding rules - in particular forwarding port 443 and port 80 (both protocols) to the local ip address of the destination NAS

 

Can anyone help please - I've spent too much time on this to give in now!!

 

 

 

 

 

 


Create new topic
freitasm
BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41029

Administrator
ID Verified
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  #3172333 16-Dec-2023 13:12
Send private message

Entirely outside the box, but instead of having port forwards, couldn't you install Tailscale in each NAS and use the private IP addresses instead? No need for port forwards, everything encrypted between the nodes, fast Wireguard-based connection.





Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies 

 

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

 




lxsw20
3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

  #3172335 16-Dec-2023 13:29
Send private message

Who is the ISP these Synologys are behind? Is it one that uses CG-NAT?


Lightbulb

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

ID Verified
Lifetime subscriber

  #3172339 16-Dec-2023 13:36
Send private message

lxsw20:

 

Who is the ISP these Synologys are behind? Is it one that uses CG-NAT?

 

 

both Spark - as I understand it, Spark does not do CG-NAT

 

 




Lightbulb

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

ID Verified
Lifetime subscriber

  #3172340 16-Dec-2023 13:40
Send private message

freitasm:

 

Entirely outside the box, but instead of having port forwards, couldn't you install Tailscale in each NAS and use the private IP addresses instead? No need for port forwards, everything encrypted between the nodes, fast Wireguard-based connection.

 

 

Maybe I should try this - but just frustrating me that something that should work, doesnt work (well for me at least).

 

I'm wondering whether there are some other edgerouter settings that I need to change - but don't know enouygh about this modem.

 

 

 

Re Tailscale, would this be better speed than using a synology ddns, or would there be a performance hit?


Jase2985
13730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6202

ID Verified
Lifetime subscriber

  #3172461 16-Dec-2023 18:56
Send private message

Lightbulb:

 

Re Tailscale, would this be better speed than using a synology ddns, or would there be a performance hit?

 

 

Ddns shouldn't affect the connection speed at all.


nztim
4012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2710

ID Verified
Trusted
TEAMnetwork
Subscriber

  #3172977 18-Dec-2023 12:20
Send private message

+1 for any sort of wireguard connection





Any views expressed on these forums are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of my employer. 


 
 
 
 

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

xpd

xpd
Geek of Coastguard
14115 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4574

Retired Mod
ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3172980 18-Dec-2023 12:24
Send private message

Lightbulb:

 

lxsw20:

 

Who is the ISP these Synologys are behind? Is it one that uses CG-NAT?

 

 

both Spark - as I understand it, Spark does not do CG-NAT

 

 

 

 

Are they both on static IP's ? Just because they don't use CG-NAT does not mean the IP can't change occasionally.

 

 





XPD / Gavin

 

LinkTree

 

 

 


Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.