How to get open NAT on Xbox One via DishNet?

[Deadlocked]

I used to have it but recently it's become moderate and I can't sign into the EA Servers on Madden. :/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deadlocked]

Update: I have Open NAT now but still issues with EA Servers. Apparently I have a double NAT. Anyone know how to resolve this between the HT1000 and Netgear WRN1000v3?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

You could try turning the Netgear router into an access point. That would restore DHCP and NAT responsibility to your gateway.

 

[Deadlocked]

I mean the only issue is EA Madden servers, I'm able to connect to any other server. I'll wait to see if FIFA and NHL has the same issue before I do more tinkering as Dragon Age connected fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

I mean the only issue is EA Madden servers, I'm able to connect to any other server. I'll wait to see if FIFA and NHL has the same issue before I do more tinkering as Dragon Age connected fine.

Unless you're using something very specific in the Netgear router (VPN and DMZ probably isn't possible since you're already NATed by the gateway), you've got nothing to lose but latency in turning off the routing functions.

Losing latency is almost always something worth pursuing if you're a gamer; especially one connecting over an inherently laggy connection.

 

[Deadlocked]

Well I'm also bidding my time a bit until I get a new router I've had this one for two years last month and it's on it's last legs.

Currently I've opened the NAT from secured, did the port triggering, and dhcp reservation on Xbox One. All that got me from moderate to open. Which means to further troubleshoot I need to try the EA servers on the other sports games which I won't have until Tuesday.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

Well I'm also bidding my time a bit until I get a new router I've had this one for two years last month and it's on it's last legs.

All the more reason to turn off the Netgear routing functions and use it as a WAP. The easiest way to make it look like you don't have two NATs is to not have two NATs.

Another practical option is to figure out how to turn off the routing functions of the gateway. Setting up a VPN between the routers is just asking for headaches and even more latency.

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that two years is the maximum lifespan of a router.

 

[Deadlocked]

All the more reason to turn off the Netgear routing functions and use it as a WAP. The easiest way to make it look like you don't have two NATs is to not have two NATs.

Another practical option is to figure out how to turn off the routing functions of the gateway. Setting up a VPN between the routers is just asking for headaches and even more latency.

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that two years is the maximum lifespan of a router.

It's had its share of abuse (cat household) and the way it's been acting lately (like having to reboot it once every several weeks) is pretty much telling me it's about shot. Plus finally upgrading to a duelband.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stardust3]

IMO dual band routers are a waste of money and for most so is anything above an n-300. Ddwrt is the way to go.

 

[n0qcu]

IMO dual band routers are a waste of money and for most so is anything above an n-300. Ddwrt is the way to go.

But don't you need 5 GHz to do anything over G?

 

[stardust3]

But don't you need 5 GHz to do anything over G?

I don't believe you can get 5 ghz over g, it is limited to a, n & ac. Also the max speed over g is 56 mbps.

 

[n0qcu]

You comment doesn't answer the question, so I'll rephrase it.
isn't 2.4 GHz limited to a max speed of "G" and anything faster "A, N, AC" must use 5 GHz?

 

[stardust3]

You comment doesn't answer the question, so I'll rephrase it.
isn't 2.4 GHz limited to a max speed of "G" and anything faster must use 5 GHz?

G is limited to 2.4, N can use either. N on 2.4 can provide very fast speeds. An N-300 router using a 20 mhz channel width can run up to 150 mbps. I use a dynamic channel width on mine where it uses 20/40 mhz at the same time. My laptop which is capable of using the 40 mhz channel width runs at a full 300 mbps on the 2.4 ghz band using wireless N.

Not saying the 5 ghz band isn't useful or beneficial, it most definitely is. Just feel that it is more of niche, businesses and apt dwellers are the biggest beneficiaries of that band imo.

 

[n0qcu]

If you say so, i will stick to using 5 GHz band for n and use only g on 2.4

 

[harshness]

It's had its share of abuse (cat household) and the way it's been acting lately (like having to reboot it once every several weeks) is pretty much telling me it's about shot.

Cats are evil.

Plus finally upgrading to a duelband.

I've never thought of areas that are served by satellite Internet as being so congested as to need dual-band Wi-fi.

 

[harshness]

IMO dual band routers are a waste of money and for most so is anything above an n-300. Ddwrt is the way to go.

Some put all of their eggs in the Wi-fi basket and/or have significant RF competition from their neighbors so they need something that is a little different just to get a frequency that they can call their own.

In my home, Wi-fi is used pretty much uniquely for my tablet so having more Wi-fi bandwidth than my Internet connection can use is pointless.

I can't abide using Wi-fi for devices that are stationary. I'll figure out a way to wire it if it stays in one place long enough.

 

[Deadlocked]

Cats are evil.
I've never thought of areas that are served by satellite Internet as being so congested as to need dual-band Wi-fi.

At peak time 4 devices are connected to my router. Dual-band would hopefully split that 2-2


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

At peak time 4 devices are connected to my router. Dual-band would hopefully split that 2-2

Do any of these devices communicate with each other? Having two networks is taking up twice the RF bandwidth and if devices are talking to each other across bands, twice the Wi-fi bandwidth with little to no net gain in performance.

If none of the devices is communicating with another on the LAN, it all gets choked down to the Internet bandwidth that is likely narrower than either of the Wi-fi bands individually.

Contrast this with a switched Ethernet network where everything is point-to-point, simultaneously bi-directional and nothing has to be shared that isn't literally competing for one node's resources.