locked
Is 1 RDP port enough? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Seriously, is it?

    There's a new "howto" explaining how to do it but I still have no idea why I would want or need 2 (or more) RDP ports? Is it a new fad? Will it make me RDP faster? More concurrent connections? Why?

    Anyone?

    Saturday, August 4, 2007 3:44 AM

All replies

  • I can think of a good reason.

    Hypothetical situation (in that I don't know what the ill-behaved piece of software might be; it's a valid reason, though): You need to use a piece of software which, for whatever reason, interferes with remote desktop protocol connections. Maybe it uses port 3389 itself. But you want to be able to connect to WHS (or some other server) with Remote Desktop from both that crippled machine and other machines as well, and you don't want to reconfigure all the other machines. So you need a port that the crippled machine can use, and a port that other machines can use. That's two ports, I think.
    Saturday, August 4, 2007 3:52 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    I can think of a good reason.

    Hypothetical situation (in that I don't know what the ill-behaved piece of software might be; it's a valid reason, though): You need to use a piece of software which, for whatever reason, interferes with remote desktop protocol connections. Maybe it uses port 3389 itself. But you want to be able to connect to WHS (or some other server) with Remote Desktop from both that crippled machine and other machines as well, and you don't want to reconfigure all the other machines. So you need a port that the crippled machine can use, and a port that other machines can use. That's two ports, I think.

    Thank you!  Finally an answer, it's like pulling teeth around here. While that *should* be hypothetical because RDP is a standard port so the example SW would be pretty poorly written, I'd say, but at least that is a possible reason somebody might, I guess. Seriously, I see a new "howto" and the first thing I want to know is, why would I want to do that? What is the benefit to my WHS? I never expected asking a question to be such a bad thing. Most howto threads have a reason to do what they explain how to do but maybe this one doesn't. *shrug*
    (BTW, you can unlock poor Ahmad's thread now)



    Can anyone else think of a reason for 2 or more RDP ports?

    Saturday, August 4, 2007 4:05 AM
  • I can give you at least one such poorly behaved piece of software, actually. Some versions of the Cisco Systems VPN client software at least used to cause a lot of problems with networking, including Remote Desktop. I don't know if it's still a problem, because I haven't used Cisco VPN software in years (long enough that I'd forgotten about this little quirk), but at one time just having it installed caused problems whether it was running or not.
    Saturday, August 4, 2007 5:15 AM
    Moderator
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    I can give you at least one such poorly behaved piece of software, actually. Some versions of the Cisco Systems VPN client software at least used to cause a lot of problems with networking, including Remote Desktop. I don't know if it's still a problem, because I haven't used Cisco VPN software in years (long enough that I'd forgotten about this little quirk), but at one time just having it installed caused problems whether it was running or not.


    I haven't installed it in ~4 years but version 4.0.2 (D) didn't have that problem, that I ran into. I don't know what versions did but I'll take your word for it. If there's a howto for WHS there should be a need of some kind for WHS users. I'm sure somebody will come up with something, eventually. *shrug*


    Saturday, August 4, 2007 5:45 AM
  • Ken

    I really see no point of closing the howto topic just because one user do not see the need for it. Even from a totall 20,000 persons see no need issue, and one person of that 20,000 see it a need, then it worth post it.

    That howto, is not "must-to/have-to/fix-to" issue, and I did not answer him because simply his Q. as "Why I have to.." and that howto topic did not meant to be as "have to issue".

    I saw one member here ask regarding the possiblty to pay-pass the NAT firewall rules bloking for remote ports block, then that howto can consider as a one possiblty issue to his problem, maybe will not solve the issue, but it is a possiblty to be.

    Then a topic as this one come, "do we need to have more ports when one is enough?" In a suggestion forum, funny part tho, the howto topic been closed, then been allowed to go againest it in the suggestion forum, from the mod. team.

    My best.




    Saturday, August 4, 2007 7:44 AM
  • He didn't close it because one member doesn't see the need, he closed it to stop me from replying to his false assertion that the situations were the same but, I do agree, it didn't need to be closed.

    As I've said, I see no reason to open a second port. If you have a reason, good for you, I just asked why somebody would need/want to do what the "howto" explains. I don't think that's too much to ask.

    I still don't get it but whatever works for you. Wink

    When your path is blocked you can go back, go around or go through. I had a legitimate question that wasn't being answered, so I tried another angle. I still don't have an answer that I understand but I'm still open to other ideas. I hope he unlocks your thread though. Just because I don't understand the need doesn't mean there isn't one, I'm just trying to understand it.

    Saturday, August 4, 2007 8:50 AM
  •  SME wrote:
    He didn't close it because one member doesn't see the need, he closed it to stop me from replying to his false assertion that the situations were the same but, I do agree, it didn't need to be closed.

    As I've said, I see no reason to open a second port. If you have a reason, good for you, I just asked why somebody would need/want to do what the "howto" explains. I don't think that's too much to ask.

    I still don't get it but whatever works for you.

    When your path is blocked you can go back, go around or go through. I had a legitimate question that wasn't being answered, so I tried another angle. I still don't have an answer that I understand but I'm still open to other ideas. I hope he unlocks your thread though. Just because I don't understand the need doesn't mean there isn't one, I'm just trying to understand it.



    Thanks for your reply, I am sorry if I misunderstood your point of asking in the the howto topic, now it very clear.

    Let say that howto come to the category of "we know what that port do, we want to block it", the nmaybe the howto will help in that matters, they are others possiblity for it, but I did not post it for that ceases.

    Me and you and most others will not need that howto in our network, but always a case someone will do, so it there.

    IF I offended you by not reply in that howto or in any other topics, please accept my apology, because it never meant to be.

    The apology goes to Mr. Ken as well.

    My best,
    Ahmad
    Saturday, August 4, 2007 10:23 AM
  • The only other reason for requiring a 2nd RDP port, is because of older routers that cannot handle more that one virtual port redirection on 3389. 

     

    i.e if you have two machines on your LAN that you want to get RDP access to from the WAN(Internet), you would have no choice but to use port 3389 for one machine re-direct and port 3390 for the other.  Some older routers will allow not allow the re-direct from 3390(external) -> 3389 (internal), so you have to modify the RDP on the local machine to allow 3389(RDP) on a different port, port 3390 is usually the next best port to use.

     

    I hope this clears up the main question that was asked...

     

    Saturday, August 4, 2007 10:38 AM
  •  ed205gti wrote:

    The only other reason for requiring a 2nd RDP port, is because of older routers that cannot handle more that one virtual port redirection on 3389. 

     

    i.e if you have two machines on your LAN that you want to get RDP access to from the WAN(Internet), you would have no choice but to use port 3389 for one machine re-direct and port 3390 for the other.  Some older routers will allow not allow the re-direct from 3390(external) -> 3389 (internal), so you have to modify the RDP on the local machine to allow 3389(RDP) on a different port, port 3390 is usually the next best port to use.

     

    I hope this clears up the main question that was asked...

     



    That's the best reason I've seen yet except that since WHS acts as the remote access proxy so there'd be no need to open a second port on WHS to get to the other machine. Without WHS to act as a proxy that would make some sense but this is a WHS forum though. Additionally, in your scenario, you really wouldn't have to "add another port" to any computer, you'd only have to "change the port," on one, and then open that port in the router. So far, this still seems like it'd be no different than adding a second port for HTTP or SMTP, kind of superfluous but I haven't given up yet. Somebody will have a real reason to do it, if one exists.

    Saturday, August 4, 2007 6:36 PM
  • Isn't the second RDP port for the WHS connector software to connect to the WHS machine? Rather than exposing the additional WHS functionality to the Remote Desktop connections and vice versa, I believe they were seperated out.
    Sunday, August 5, 2007 5:55 PM
  •  Lyme wrote:
    Isn't the second RDP port for the WHS connector software to connect to the WHS machine? Rather than exposing the additional WHS functionality to the Remote Desktop connections and vice versa, I believe they were seperated out.


    I'm not sure you can change the port for the connectors but remote connectors wouldn't be supported either way, imo. Those are supposed to be on the LAN, not WAN. YMMV

    Sunday, August 5, 2007 6:04 PM
  •  SME wrote:
     Lyme wrote:
    Isn't the second RDP port for the WHS connector software to connect to the WHS machine? Rather than exposing the additional WHS functionality to the Remote Desktop connections and vice versa, I believe they were seperated out.



    I'm not sure you can change the port for the connectors but remote connectors wouldn't be supported either way, imo. Those are supposed to be on the LAN, not WAN. YMMV

     

    No, you can not change the ports the connector uses.

    Monday, August 6, 2007 8:16 AM
    Moderator