Webserver : Something went wrong !

[scubadoo]

Hi Guys,

Hope someone can help me..

First of all, everything has worked correctly up until a month ago.

I have 4 websites running on my 1511, everything is correct from a DNS perspective and also from a router perspective. I have recently upgraded to 4.0, but problem is still the same.

It seems like port 80 transforms itself to any port used by the admin interface (when I say any, it is because i have tried to move the port) when i use port 81 or 82 in router and DNS, situation is the same, the URL change from www.xxx.dk to www.xxx.dk:5000 and nothing shows. I have fiddled with priveligies but that does not change a hole lot, I am beginning to suspect that the web services is flawed in some odd way.

Needles to say nothing shows other that the URL changing when you try to reach a webpage..

cheers !

Scubadoo

[axj]

Yes, it sounds mystic! I also use port 80 and for different purpose also about 15 other ports (some of them because YouSee don't allow all high ports to be used) without problems!
I use both redirected ports and 'Virtuel Hosts' without any problems. Sometimes I have seen a missing or wrong index-file causing the shift to :5000 (i.e. control) but can you describe the problems a little more clearly?

[scubadoo]

Shure, and thanks for your rapid reply..

Since I can see we're from the same country, here is some more background, on who and what I use :

GratisDNS, all good, everything works smoothly, all 4 domains are pointed to my router

Fullrate, with 'fast IP' (Private IP adress ?) as passthrough router, all other tasks are handled by the Dlink router

Dlink 855 port 80 is forwarded to port 80 on the NAS, so is 5000. Strangly enough port 80 on the outside is transmogriffed to port 5000 or what ever port I choose to use as HTTP port for DSM ?!? This iswhat puzzles me the most..

All dominas have a working index file, mainly index.htm

thanks again

Scubadoo

[axj]

Did you find solutions for your problems? I just read your first post again and noticed that neither 'Virtuel host' nor problems about high portnumbers was mentioned.