23 Jul
2003
23 Jul
'03
3:38 p.m.
I think its this way:
FXO-interface: connects to the PSTN network an behaves like a normal phone the PSTN
network.
FXS-interface: connects to phone and behaves like a PSTN network to the phone (acts as a
power supply for the phone).
Simple scenario:
Analog Phone <---> FXS + PC <----VoIP----> PC + FXO (=Gateway)
<---->PSTN
regards,
Klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Adamson [mailto:radamson@routers.com]
Sent: Wed 23.07.2003 14:23
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
Think the FXS is a Foreign Exchange interface intended to tie
a ser-accessible gateway to a telephone/pbx line (not to a
telephone instrument).
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>We are using Check Point firewall I configured
this
>server to allow both way in/out and NATED with public
>IP.
>For testing purpose I kept all ports opened in the
>firewall, for this particular server. I don’t why I am
>not able to register it.
Might take a closer look at the Checkpoint to see if it is
doing Port Address Translation (PAT) in addition to NAT.
If I recall correctly, the older versions of Checkpoints
software did PAT, which caused folks problems when an app
wanted to use specific tcp/udp port numbers (for example,
when trying to use an non-checkpoint VPN box on the inside
of the checkpoint).
Which is better
PSTN gateway. We are looking at 1 to 2
FXS port at this time for testing purpose.
? FXS is a PSTN-phone-2-IP gateway, isn't it? The most
popular is cisco's ata. 
23 Jul
23 Jul
7:18 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
I have got an H323 Mediatrix FXO gateway. It is not SIP based. May I use it
with SER?
Thanks
Emery
----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Darilion" <darilion(a)ict.tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Rich Adamson" <radamson(a)routers.com>om>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 15:38
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
I think its this way:
FXO-interface: connects to the PSTN network an behaves like a normal phone
the PSTN network.
FXS-interface: connects to phone and behaves like a PSTN network to the
phone (acts as a power supply for the phone).
Simple scenario:
Analog Phone <---> FXS + PC <----VoIP----> PC + FXO (=Gateway)
<---->PSTN
regards,
Klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Adamson [mailto:radamson@routers.com]
Sent: Wed 23.07.2003 14:23
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
Think the FXS is a Foreign Exchange interface intended to tie
a ser-accessible gateway to a telephone/pbx line (not to a
telephone instrument).
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>We are using Check Point firewall I configured
this
>server to allow both way in/out and NATED with public
>IP.
>For testing purpose I kept all ports opened in the
>firewall, for this particular server. I don’t why I am
>not able to register it.
Might take a closer look at the Checkpoint to see if it is
doing Port Address Translation (PAT) in addition to NAT.
If I recall correctly, the older versions of Checkpoints
software did PAT, which caused folks problems when an app
wanted to use specific tcp/udp port numbers (for example,
when trying to use an non-checkpoint VPN box on the inside
of the checkpoint).
Which is better
PSTN gateway. We are looking at 1 to 2
FXS port at this time for testing purpose.
? FXS is a PSTN-phone-2-IP gateway, isn't it? The most
popular is cisco's ata. 
8:19 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 18:18, Director General: NEFACOMP wrote:
I have got an H323 Mediatrix FXO gateway. It is not
SIP based. May I use it
with SER?
No.
Nils
Thanks
Emery
----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Darilion" <darilion(a)ict.tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Rich Adamson" <radamson(a)routers.com>om>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 15:38
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
I think its this way:
FXO-interface: connects to the PSTN network an behaves like a normal phone
the PSTN network.
FXS-interface: connects to phone and behaves like a PSTN network to the
phone (acts as a power supply for the phone).
Simple scenario:
Analog Phone <---> FXS + PC <----VoIP----> PC + FXO (=Gateway)
<---->PSTN
regards,
Klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Adamson [mailto:radamson@routers.com]
Sent: Wed 23.07.2003 14:23
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
Think the FXS is a Foreign Exchange interface intended to tie
a ser-accessible gateway to a telephone/pbx line (not to a
telephone instrument).
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>We are using Check Point firewall I
configured this
>server to allow both way in/out and NATED with public
>IP.
>For testing purpose I kept all ports opened in the
>firewall, for this particular server. I don’t why I am
>not able to register it.
Might take a closer look at the Checkpoint to see if it is
doing Port Address Translation (PAT) in addition to NAT.
If I recall correctly, the older versions of Checkpoints
software did PAT, which caused folks problems when an app
wanted to use specific tcp/udp port numbers (for example,
when trying to use an non-checkpoint VPN box on the inside
of the checkpoint).
Which is
better PSTN gateway. We are looking at 1 to 2
FXS port at this time for testing purpose.
? FXS is a PSTN-phone-2-IP gateway, isn't it? The most
popular is cisco's ata. 
24 Jul
24 Jul
9:21 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
I think mediatrix has had sip support since long time, perhaps it is
just about firmware upgrade. Unfortunately, several people here on
the mailing list questioned its interoperability cpabilities.
-jiri
At 06:18 PM 7/23/2003, Director General: NEFACOMP wrote:
I have got an H323 Mediatrix FXO gateway. It is not SIP
based. May I use it
with SER?
Thanks
Emery
----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Darilion" <darilion(a)ict.tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Rich Adamson" <radamson(a)routers.com>om>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 15:38
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
I think its this way:
FXO-interface: connects to the PSTN network an behaves like a normal phone
the PSTN network.
FXS-interface: connects to phone and behaves like a PSTN network to the
phone (acts as a power supply for the phone).
Simple scenario:
Analog Phone <---> FXS + PC <----VoIP----> PC + FXO (=Gateway)
<---->PSTN
regards,
Klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Adamson [mailto:radamson@routers.com]
Sent: Wed 23.07.2003 14:23
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Firewall and NAT
Think the FXS is a Foreign Exchange interface intended to tie
a ser-accessible gateway to a telephone/pbx line (not to a
telephone instrument).
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>We are using Check Point firewall I
configured this
>server to allow both way in/out and NATED with public
>IP.
>For testing purpose I kept all ports opened in the
>firewall, for this particular server. I don�t why I am
>not able to register it.
Might take a closer look at the Checkpoint to see if it is
doing Port Address Translation (PAT) in addition to NAT.
If I recall correctly, the older versions of Checkpoints
software did PAT, which caused folks problems when an app
wanted to use specific tcp/udp port numbers (for example,
when trying to use an non-checkpoint VPN box on the inside
of the checkpoint).
Which is
better PSTN gateway. We are looking at 1 to 2
FXS port at this time for testing purpose.
? FXS is a PSTN-phone-2-IP gateway, isn't it? The most
popular is cisco's ata.
7795
days inactive
7796
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Director General: NEFACOMP -
Jiri Kuthan -
Klaus Darilion -
Nils Ohlmeier