You posted this on SF without enough details for anyone to venture a guess as to what's going on. Now you posted the same content here, still lacking those details. Did you think I was kidding when I said more information was needed?

My firewall is off. There are a few other users on the network. I'm working via wifi. I'm running TCP / UDP servers on port 5669

Details. Details! Network equipment. How it's configured. What systems are inside the network. What systems are outside the network. Where you're sending traffic from. Where you're sending traffic to. Also, edit your question to include the information. Don't just provide it in comments. You need to help us help you, the more information you can provide, the better.

I did no such thing, Tobi. I've been trying honestly to help you this entire time, but you've ignore all of my recommendations.

I can see the inbound connections in wireshark, but not my application. The inbound ports seem random, also, around the 60000 range. I've explained so much, what more do u want? A 10 page question?

I've given you a list of what is needed. Twice now. Why do you refuse to give this information? You're flailing around trying to get us to help you without taking a minute to give information requested. Do you want help or do you not want help? If you do, you've already been pointed in the right direction. It's up to you to execute.

I'm desperate for help, but I've just been criticised, downvoted and I'm subsequently banned... I've given you everything. ` what systems are where, how you have your firewall configured, etc. `

I was in the process of editing the question, but I figured that there was no point trying to get help anymore, and started trying to get it working again, to no avail of course.

You've given a tiny portion of what I listed. I'm sorry you're under the gun here. Truly. If you're not willing to invest in a good question, though, and to provide information needed to answer, I question how desperate you actually are.

No one even gives me a chance to respond... I spent 2 hours creating this question and it's been put on hold...

I specifically gave you the information you requested in my early comment. Did you even read the edit? How can a question with so much detail be put on hold as "unclear"...

You spent two hours not providing the information requested. You still have not come close to giving the information requested. I stand by my assertion, though, that this is due to lack of hairpin NAT support in your router.

Good luck. Honestly. I hope you're able to get this resolved. I'm done being ignored, though, so I'm going to check out of this one.

That's besides the point. That only refers to why I don't receive my packets, not the remote peers' connections.

How have I ignored you? What do you need me to provide? You're being quite ambiguous... I've tried to provide evverrytthinggggg

superuser.com/questions/1216044/… Again. Good luck and good night.

Why link this question in its comments?

That's a link to all of the things you've ignored.

Read the edit.... I answered all of that.......

Why is this still on hold???

Because still, three hours later and despite ad nauseam recommendations, you still refuse. You've given zero useful details on your network, how things are configured, where your systems sit that you're using, which systems are the client, which systems are the server, etc. it's almost as if your either hiding something or just don't believe me that this info is important.

There are other users are on the wifi, like me, but not running comparable programs. I currently have no admin access to the router. my system is running a UDP server, a TCP server, and a TCP client. I've opened TCP connections with Multiple peers, and sent a handshake. They also have TCP clients and servers running. They respond to my handshake as shown in the wireshark print screen. All of this information is in the question, with a lot more detail, from the actual IP's i'm connecting to, to the data itself in raw binary form... What would I be hiding?

(Cont’d) …  With this interface, two processes on your computer can communicate through TCP/IP without actually using the network. The others are assigned to physical interfaces (or perhaps virtual or cloned interfaces); in most cases, these are non-routable private IP addresses that begin with 10, 172, or 192. With these addresses, computers on your LAN can communicate through TCP/IP without using the Internet … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  (i.e., without going through the ISP). Finally, a computer that is connected to the Internet will generally have a publicly routable, external IP address that is (typically) assigned by the ISP. (For example, yours apparently begins with 87.) Computers outside your LAN can communicate with you using this address. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … I’m boring you with all this information that you probably already know because I don’t see it reflected in your question. … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  You say you’ve connected to yourself using the loopback address (127.0.0.1), but then you ask, “Why am I only able to receive LAN messages?” Are you able to receive LAN messages? Have you tested communicating between your machine and another one on your LAN? (2) You say in a comment (now in chat), “my system is running a UDP server, a TCP server, and a TCP client.” But you say in the question, “I send a message to a UDP server, ….” At the risk of splitting hairs, … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  doesn’t that mean that you also have a UDP client on your system? (3) You say multiple times that you are using port 8661 (which is associated- with streaming services). … (4) But you have a // comment in your application log that says, “I changed my port a few times...”. (4a) Please don’t tamper with relevant data like that. (It is OK to truncate or excerpt data for brevity, or to redact sensitive information; in some cases it may be useful to clearly annotate … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  key pieces of information.) (4b) Please don’t hide narrative information in data blocks like that. If you have important information to say, say it in the text portion of your post. (4c) What does it mean? Do you mean that, for a while, you used a port other than 8661? Describe! (5) That Wireshark output at the bottom of your question is a little weird. You say in the question, “You can see some of the IP's I connected to responding, via TCP.” Three of the lines … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  show remote hosts sending you a [SYN, ACK] packet. This means that they are responding to connection requests from your computer. You even say in a comment, “I’ve opened TCP connections with multiple peers, and sent a handshake. They also have TCP clients and servers running. They respond to my handshake as shown in the Wireshark print screen.” But you also say in the question, “I also logged inbound TCP connections using Wireshark, and noticed the same IP addresses … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  making requests to seemingly random ports.” So which is it: are they making requests or are you? You should probably look at these further. For example, doesn’t Wireshark let you drill down and look at packet data? (4b) What’s in the packets you aren’t showing up? (You are showing packets 67, 69, 72, 75, 77, 80, and 83.) You don’t have to show us all the packets (see above), but tell us what you’re filtering out. … (Cont’d)

(Cont’d) …  (And if you are filtering out [SYN] packets from your computer to the remote one, stop hiding relevant data!) (99) I probably won’t be able to help you much. (a) This is at the outside edge of my area of expertise. By the time I had read 1/3 of the way through your question, I was thinking “this looks like a hairpin NAT problem”; now that you know that, I’m pretty much out of ideas. (b) I have real-world commitments pulling me away from Stack Exchange for at least a few hours. (0) Good luck!

BTW: 87.233.192.220:6969 is the server I connected to's IP, not mine.

I don't know why people think I'm filtering data.... I only replaced my IP address with My IP on a total of 5 lines...

I don't even know what ACK messages mean, why would I be filtering them??

The responses they send shop up in wire shark at seemingly random ports, as shown in wireshark print screen

I must have a UDP client in my app then, as I send packets to the server

I only changed my port while debugging, after I posted the question. I edited it with more information and thought it may be helpful to answer why there were multiple records of my IP from the tracker.

@Scott I already edited the question clarifying that I may have discovered why I can't internally connect to my remote IP--hairpin NAT. But, this is besides the real point of the connection, detecting connections from other remote IP address (as I said to EAA)..

@Tobi What do these other connections have to do with anyhing? They're not related in any way to your task of debugging this application you're writing as far as I can tell. You have an answer to your original question, which I gave to you hours ago. I'm not sure why you continue dragging things out and needlessly confusing things.

My application revolves around others connecting to me, not me connecting to myself.

@Tobi If you don't have control of your router to configure things like port forwards, how in the world do you expect others to be able to connect to you?