WinBox Port
RouterOS general discussion

13 posts   •   Page 1 of 1
User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

WinBox Port

by Reefbum » Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:14 am

Is it possible to change the port WinBox uses to connect?

My install requires the use of 4 - x86 MT systems all sitting behind a Load Balancer. Each with about 500 concurrent users.

Load Balancer has public IP X.X.X.X and then gives the following static IP's to my MT boxes.

MT 1 = 172.40.0.2
MT 2 = 172.40.0.3
MT 3 = 172.40.0.4
MT 4 = 172.40.0.5

Currently I have the default winbox port being foward to my MT 1 box but cant reach the other 3.

Is there a way to change the port that WinBox uses so I can reach all 4 MT boxes through my load balancer?

If there is no way to currently change the WinBox Port could MT add this feature in the next release of WinBox?

Stan
Last edited by Reefbum on Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:31 am, edited 3 times in total.

pedja
Long time Member
Long time Member
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:37 am

by pedja » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:30 am

Us Winbox menu IP / Services
Shange port for www to any you want.

I think you should reboot afterwards (not sure).

User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

by Reefbum » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:54 am

This does not work, unless I am missing something. This only changes the port at which the MT unit listens on for http traffic.

I need to change the actual port that WinBox uses. i.e. from 8291 to 1024

In this way I could set my port foward up.

Winbox uses 1024 to connect - I foward port 1024 in my modem to the IP of my MT box at 172.40.0.2 to port 8291

changeip
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:22 pm

by changeip » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:15 am

I would think a dst-nat with action redirect would work, but it doesn't ... seems winbox ignores port numbers now.

Sam

User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

by Reefbum » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:28 am

I have tried dst-nat and a few other things I could think of and nothing seems to work.

I can't beleive there is no way to make this happen, I would prefer to use MT on 20 or so of my deployments but if I can't access multipule MT units from behind my load balancers I will have to go with other router software. I found 2 others that will allow remote management through port fowarding.

Perhaps MT guys can change WinBox in the next release to allow us to choose the port we want to use.

jo2jo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 1:25 am

by jo2jo » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:40 am

yea i think this is the most asked question across the board.....since im assuming you are needing to access many MT boxes Nat'd Behind 1 public IP the best and easiest solution is setup a quick / easy pptp vpn server on the MT router ( you ARE routing with mt RIGHT :)) ) and then vpn in, and winbox to each MT's IP ...or do an EoIP tunnel between two MT's and macWINBOX it up...

i'm sure there is a good reason we cant easily change the winbox port....


joe

User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

by Reefbum » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:48 am

I am setting up my deployments with a Pep-Link 7-WAN load balancer.

My sites will have aprox 3000 concurrent users and I dont think a single MT x86 box can handle this amount of users. This is why I need to use several.

The load blancers are on public IP's and the MT boxes are sitting on LAN ports 1~4. I can setup port fowarding and/or virtual servers in the load balancer but this does no good if WinBox can only access on a single port at 8291

If this is the most asked question accross the board why hasn't MT done something about it?

User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

by Reefbum » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:23 pm

Any help on this one?
Anyone?

jo2jo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 1:25 am

by jo2jo » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:48 pm

The peplink equipment is complete crap! their tech support is good and helpful but the product is horrible...it ONLY HAS A WEB INTERFACE. What i tested was the Peplink Balence 300 it was a nightmare and actually was the reason I found MT hardware (as ironic as it is i WAS already using MT stuff on APs but i did not know it..)

Use MT if possible...peplink will take back the product and give you a refund as they did with me but there is only os much you can do with a web interface...

with reguards to your question remaing about the winbox port you didnt say why you cant use VPN...you may have a good reason but you have not stated it...just vpn into one of the RB's and connect from there...

User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

by Reefbum » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:10 pm

The reason I use Peplink is for load balancing 7 WAN connections.

I have 2 in use now and have had no issues with them. As far as having web interface only, I dont have an issue with that as all I use it for is Load Balancing and virtual server setup to redirect ports to my other server and to my MT boxes

jo2jo
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 1:25 am

by jo2jo » Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:51 pm

and do any of your clients have session persistance problems....ie msn and instant messengers not being able to maintain connection?

EDIT: with 3000 conc. users how much bandwidth does this thing see?? just curious..

jo

User avatar
Reefbum
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:00 am

by Reefbum » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:00 am

Have aprox 45mbps that runs through it pretty constant.
And I have not had complaints about IM

christyjame
just joined
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:19 pm
Location: Erode,Tamilnadu,India

Re: WinBox Port

by christyjame » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:04 pm

Hi seniors ,

worth conversation
Christyjame

13 posts   •   Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atlantis, Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Liodakis, normis, tpfresh, WirelessRudy and 83 guests

It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:26 pm