What does this error message mean? What is wrong? Appears when adding a new One-To-One NAT rule. The first rule is OK. When I try to add a rule nr. 2, this error message occures.
Hi Bjorn, thanks for using our forum, my name is Johnnatan and I am part of the Small business Support community. I was wondering what is your devie firmware version, the latest release is the 18.104.22.168 , you can download it here, older firmware version had problems with the One-To-One NAT, you can see those errors here, you can also use a “port forwarding” in order to create your rule, if you explain us a little more about your configuration we could help you, however if you need a quick answer, can you please reach out to our Small Business Support Center and open a Service Request to address this issue? One of our Engineers may be able to work with you and diagnose the root cause. You can find the appropriate contact information for SBSC in the below link.
I hope you find this answer useful,
“Please rate useful posts so other users can benefit from it”
Johnnatan Rodriguez Miranda.
Cisco Network Support Engineer.
Thank you for your answer. My firmware version is 22.214.171.124. Configuration: RV220W is Gateway. My server do the DHCP-service and the VPN-connection. I have set two access rules at the router: Alwaya allow HTTPS and RDP. I have also set two port forwarding rules: Always accept port 443 and 3389 to destination 126.96.36.199. This does not work without a one-to-one NAT rule. I want to establish a One-To-One NAT for HTTPS and RDP (port 3389). The server has got its own public IP-adress (80.241.X.X). The One-To One NAT is from this adress to the server's LAN adress 188.8.131.52. IP range length 1.
The first One-To One NAT is working very well. When I try to make the next One-To One NAT, I get the Error message i18nHTMLmissing.
I have this problem when adding a static route. It looks to me that it is a configuration error message as I can reproduce it.
The following static routes produce this message:
- 172.16.0.0 255.240.0.0 -> I18n... error message
- 172.16.0.0 255.254.0.0 -> I18n... error message
- 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 -> no error
- 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 -> no error
It looks to me that there is a problem with the subnet mask in this case resulting in some strange error message.
Why I can not use 255.240.0.0 as a subnetmask is another issue ;-)