TL-MR105

TL-MR105

TL-MR105
TL-MR105
a week ago - last edited a week ago
Model: TL-MR105  
Hardware Version:
Firmware Version:

From another router i want to port forward the management page 192.168.1.1

I have another router on the LAN that establishes a VPN connection for a site to site lan, so the TL-MR105 just does the 4g

With a dongle i could setup a firewall port forward its config page eg

Protocol TCP
External Zone
wgclient
External Port
4444
Internal Zone
LAN
Internal IP
192.168.1.1
Internal Port
80

So elsewhere i could connect to 192.168.X.1:4444 and would see 192.168.1.1:80
However with this device a connection is established but the content is mangled for some reason. I have tried 443 https but no different.

File:
20251118014436.pngDownload
  0      
  0      
#1
Options
5 Reply
Re:TL-MR105
a week ago

  @William4 

I couldn't edit the post to make corrections due to

Post only once every 24 hours. If you have additional questions, consider searching the community for answers or adding them as replies to an existing topic.

 

  1  
  1  
#2
Options
Re:TL-MR105
a week ago

  0  
  0  
#3
Options
Re:TL-MR105
a week ago - last edited a week ago

  @William4 

I should have added the reason i need to do this is becase the TL-MR105 is behind a CGNAT connection and it is not possible to connect to the Remote Management on the WAN.

 

I have a site to site VPN so i need to be able to use the management interface to check data use etc. remotly.

 

I tried a nginx reverse proxy but this also manged the page the same as above.

 

Also i have not been able to ssh with root and password to view the routing table.

  0  
  0  
#4
Options
Re:TL-MR105
a week ago

  @William4 

I have managed get access to the management interface by changing the TL-MR105's LAN subnet to something more unique, then routing that accross the site to site vpn.

 

I would still be interested why the management interface cannot be port forwarded or reverse proxied without the above effect?

  1  
  1  
#5
Options
Re:TL-MR105
Thursday

  @William4 

could this be an HTTP_REFERER enforcement check? only the developers could know?

  0  
  0  
#6
Options