7 Apr
2005
7 Apr
'05
10:52 p.m.
sorry I just read your post you sent an hour ago so ignore my last
message, thanks.
Lada
> > > > > > Make sure you are not
behind a Symmetric NAT. If so, you're
> > > > > > dead. STUN does not work with Symmetric NAT.
> > > > >
> > > > > If a UA is behind Symmetric NAT, and
> > > > > UA use STUN, and
> > > > > SER have [RTP/Media]Proxy to handle Symmetric NAT,
> > > > > this UA should be fine, right?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but, if UA is behind symmetric NAT, I would not
> > > > configure STUN to it. I'd just led mediaproxy solve the problem.
> > >
> > > But if you have 100 clients,
> > > it would be hard to put all clients in one group.
> >
> > LA> Good point !
> >
> > LA> Yes, it is true. If stun can not solve the nat problem,
> > media proxy
> > LA> should fix it with no trouble at all.
> >
> If there is no symmetric NAT and I have installed
STUN and
> Mediaproxy on my server. Which one will have higher priority
> to handle this call session? Is it always STUN? Of course if
> I don't need to pass the call to PSTN gateway. Just IP-phone
> to IP-phone. Can you set the priority in ser.cfg? and how?
LA> It is not a matter of priorities. It depends on how you get your
LA> mediaproxy configured. You need to be aware that nated clients should
LA> use the media proxy, because of the nat problem. But, if your client can
LA> find ( using stun for example ) his public ip/port, then, from
LA> mediaproxy point of view, this client is not nated, and so, it needs not
LA> treatment ( no fixing from part of media proxy ).
LA> You can always do this: Get every traffic proxied along mediaproxy. But,
LA> if clients can talk to each other being able to bypass mediaproxy, why
LA> should you proxy your communications ???
LA> Hope to be clear
LA> Regards,
LA> Lucas