How to fix ARC not working

Since ARC arrived I tried everything to make it work including changing port forwarding settings on my router, fiddling with Tailscale. Trying to get it to work was a constant source of frustration. I’m in Australia and using ISP Spintel NBN for my internet service. Last week I’d been with Spintel for 6 months and the price was rising after my special introductory deal. The service was not good, constantly dropping out, difficulty contacting support and lies from them when I was able to talk to them. I just switched to another provider Tangerine, they were cheaper, much quicker and easier to contact. More importantly ARC was working without changing anything settings or using Tailscale. The moral of the lesson is that if you switch to another isp (especially Tangerine in Australia) perhaps miraculously ARC will work. Having said that, ARC, is frustrating as doesn’t always work too well for me with the error message “Can’t connect to your Roon Server”.

For some reason ARC has stopped working. This is the error message I received:

{
“ipv4_connectivity”: {“status”:“NetworkError”,“status_code”:504,“error”:“error: Error: ETIMEDOUT, response code: undefined, body: undefined connected? undefined”},
“external_ip”: {“actual_external_ip”:“116.aaa.bbb.ccc”,“actual_external_ipv6”:“null”,“router_external_ip”:“null”},
“natpmp_autoconfig”: {“status”:“NotFound”},
“upnp_autoconfig”: {“server_ip”:“192.168.1.1”,“found_upnp”:true,“error”:“Did not find UPnP service with WANIPConnection on network”}
}

Any help would be apreciated thanks

1 Like

It appears that Spintel in Australia use CG-NAT (by default) so you were never going to get port forwarding to work unless you paid the additional monthly charge for a public dynamic ip address or a static ip addres :wink: .

I’m surprised that you didn’t get Tailscale to work.

I find it very frustrating that it is almost universally made difficult to find out if an ISP uses CG-NAT.

It’s almost like they know that offering a service through CG-NAT is an inferior service and don’t want to tell you about their deficiencies :rofl:
And then they have the gall to charge extra for a fix (public ip address or static ip address) :wink:

Having said that, for the significant majority of the population that only use traditional client web applications (web browsing etc), the use of CG-NAT makes no difference - which is why the ISP’s can get away with it.

Thanks Wade for clarifying this.

Perhaps a list of ISP’s who don’t use CG-NAT would be beneficial, does anyone have that information?

If only!

When I was changing my ISP 18 months back, I was looking for such a list - at least pertaining to UK ISPs. I was fortunate to find one at:

This list is continually being updated (and appears to be much better now that it was when I was looking) but it is still far from complete (not all UK ISP’s are listed) and it does not provide an answer for every ISP. Of course, this is of no use whatsoever to anyone outside of the UK :frowning:

As a rough guide, with the ipv4 address pool now being officially exhausted, it is likely that newer ISP’s will be using CG-NAT (at least for residential offerings) because of the difficulty of obtaining public ip address pools whilst the older ISP’s (that obtained significant ip address blocks when they were still available) may continue to use public ip addresses whilst they can and thus avoid CG-NAT.

However, the problem is that, as the ipv4 addresses owned by an ISP get exhausted, then the ISP may have to start migrating to a CG-NAT solution. For a case in point, see the entry in the above list for Gigaclear:

Gigaclear

➤ IPv6 Support: No (they have tentative plans to deploy it)
➤ Static IP Available: Yes (£2 a month)
➤ CGNAT on Consumer Plans: Yes (at least confirmed for new customers, previously this was ‘No’)