15 Nov
2004
15 Nov
'04
8:10 p.m.
You can't go too wrong with either one. They are very similar. In my case,
the choice is based on the language used to implement it. One is in C and
the other one is Python. I am only familiar with one. The choice is easy, so
I can tweak it to fit my need.
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:00 AM
To: Bruno Lopes F. Cabral; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] NAT
Great. I'll try it again.
Would still like to know which is the preferred method and which method
can handle a higher load
of concurrent callers.
Regards,
Pual
--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" <bruno(a)openline.com.br> wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello there
Java Rockx wrote:
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-
bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?rev=1.1.2.1
Andrei,
Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments
correctly you're saying that either of these configurations
work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy
Option 2) Use mediaproxy
IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted
"Option 1" because I used nothing more than the example ser.cfg
that comes with the source distro.
I used the example config found at
My results were not good because all client side
firewalls
required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the
following UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
Grandstream ATA 486
Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
I also tested these two, and they passed here with
nathelper/rtpproxy
Cheers
!3runo
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers