hornbyp wrote:

kamilcmm wrote: In theory if I change the port to remotely access the router to 8080 and use port 80 to access LAN IP 192.168.1.200 it still doesn't work. Am I correct in thinking that if I entered 2.2.2.2:8080 it should take me to the router login page and if I enter 2.2.2.2:80 it should take me to the cameras which are on IP 192.168.1.200?

Yes.

You could try temporarily disabling the Firewall, to ascertain if that's the cause of the problem.

Piste Basher wrote: I have two IP cameras, one on 192.168.1.37 and one on 192.168.1.38 they are both on port 80 but since I have multiple WAN IP's I can use NAT- Open Ports to direct TCP/UDP from a single (separate) WAN IP to each of them individually. I assume you have the correct WAN interface (WAN2 in my case) set in Open Ports and "Any" Source IP?

There seems to be no reason why this shouldn't work for you with a single WAN IP if nothing else is using port 80. But that problem with using 8080 is troubling - that should certainly work unless the Cisco is doing something to block it?

kamilcmm wrote: Remote management is disabled so all ports should be free.

and he wrote:

I went into NAT > Open Ports > Index 1 > and added all the details so I chose WAN interface: ALL, Local computer;192.168.1.200 and opened ports 80, 8000 and 554 using TCP/UDP.

then he wrote:
I then went into Firewall > Filter setup > Set 3 > Created a new rule with following details; Source IP; My home public IP as an example lets use 9.9.9.9, Destination IP; 192.168.1.200, Service type; TCP/UDP port from 80 to 80 and everything else as default.

In theory this means that if I entered in the routers public IP followed by the port number it should take me to 192.168.1.200. e.g. lets say our work public IP is 2.2.2.2 I would enter 2.2.2.2:80 and it should take me to 192.168.1.200 correct?

I don't believe the Cisco should have anything to do with this because it has a relaxed firewall so shouldn't be blocking anything.