Hi,

 

Unfortunnatelly, the interface doesn't allow you to do this.

 

Please see attached a screenshot from web interface.

 

Thanks,

Alex.

Hi,

 

I don't realy understand what do you mean by port forwarding.

 

Since some wireless networks block access on any ports except few like 443, that is why I want to be able to use this port.

 

I don't understand why do you have this restriction.

 

Is there a way I can use port forwarding to go around this restriction?

Maybe something like external port 443 - ip 'router ip' - restricted port?

 

Thanks,

Alex.

Hi,

 

This restriction doesn't make any sense.

It should be up to the user to decide the port. I do understand that these ports might be used for web hosting, but at the end it is the responsability of the user to configure this values.

 

If you realy want to have a restriction, the best way is to check the existing port forwarding ports and stop ther users from using the same port.

 

The router is realy good, but I am really disapointed by the software.

Now, I need to spend time to install another OS like openwrt which will allow me to do what I want.

 

Alex.

@alexgoaga 

Yes, exactly this. The reason to use 443 is because some organization block high ports and I don't want them forcing me to use an lightly secured connection over their network.

If anything the validation check in the VPN config should be to see if port 443 is being used by anything in the NAT forwarding section. If the answer is no then allow the OpenVPN connection on port 443. Vice versa if the user is trying to do NAT forwarding on port 443 if they're already using it for a VPN connection.

I think you'll find that most people who want to setup VPNs on 443 will be able to not stomp on that connection with NAT forwarding.

Thanks for making this into an RFE and hopefully getting it into the next firmware release.

Just have bought the Archer C6 expecting to use OpenVPN and TCP 443 port. I am very disapointed with this restriction. I have been using this port for years with a raspiberry OpenVPN server without any kind of trouble. This is not a good answer for users. We users are not that naive and I felt sad, in the mood to return the product just becouse of this restriction. Please review TP-links politics.

I just purchased an Archer C5400X router and the only reason I purchased the router is because it said that it had OpenVPN support. I assumed, incorrectly, that it would support Port 443 TCP like my old ASUS RT-N66U.

 

As this is my primary reason for purchasing this router, if it is unable to be patched to support a port lower than 1024 than I have no need for the router and I will be returning it.

 

If there is a fix coming soon that will enable this feature, then I will keep the router, otherwise, I must return it as this is a required feature that I need.

 

I reached out to support and they confirmed the limitation on the port ranges but graciously indicated that they would reach out to engineering to see if there was willingness to enable support for OpenVPN port 443.

The software for controlling the router could potentially be updated to check for port conflicts in the live configuration settings, like my old ASUS, instead of a simple forced JQuery range check on a text form field.

 

Please add my voice to this same request that the OpenVPN software in the router support any port the user chooses to set even if there is a chance for a conflict and consider adding software logic to the firmware that verifies that the port is not being used elsewhere for port forwarding or triggering so as to prevent conflicts.

 

Many Thanks in Advance!

Sad for tou, my friend. I hope you can easily return your router. I could't.