And even worst. There are some kind of NAT that STUN does not work. You can check the mailing list i think some people call it "crap nat". Regards,
Ricardo Martinez.-
-----Mensaje original----- De: Andres [mailto:andres@telesip.net] Enviado el: Martes, 05 de Julio de 2005 17:17 Para: Giovanni Balasso CC: serusers@lists.iptel.org Asunto: Re: [Serusers] NAT considerations...
Giovanni Balasso wrote:
Just some thoughts based on my experience... After months trying to make everything work using
rtpproxy-mediaproxy with
almost everything accomplished but video, I tried to switch
to stun solution.
All my problems are gone now, I have audio, video, presence
and instant
messages working like a charm. And most important media
server doesn't flow
thru my server so network load remains very low. I have been
testing for some
days now and I'm quite happy since I still have to stumble
on major problems.
Now some considerations... On a poll onsip.org STUN usage is
very low and
rtpproxy-mediaproxy rule as NAT trasversal solution. Why
don't people use
stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found?
What are main
advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions? I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
thank you all for your two cents ;)
STUN does not work if your NAT is Symmetric. For example all Linux NATs or routers with Linux OS like the Linksys ones. Unless you have full control on what type of NAT your customer will deploy, it will be very hard to stick to an all STUN solution.
--
Andres Network Admin http://www.telesip.net
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
You will also need your SIP clients that are behind the same NAT to support ICE (Interactive Connectivty Establishment) if you want calls between them. Xten Eyebeam and Snom phones are the only ones I'm aware of that support it.
On 7/5/05, Ricardo Martinez rmartinez@redvoiss.net wrote:
And even worst. There are some kind of NAT that STUN does not work. You can check the mailing list i think some people call it "crap nat". Regards,
Ricardo Martinez.-
-----Mensaje original----- De: Andres [mailto:andres@telesip.net] Enviado el: Martes, 05 de Julio de 2005 17:17 Para: Giovanni Balasso CC: serusers@lists.iptel.org Asunto: Re: [Serusers] NAT considerations...
Giovanni Balasso wrote:
Just some thoughts based on my experience... After months trying to make everything work using
rtpproxy-mediaproxy with
almost everything accomplished but video, I tried to switch
to stun solution.
All my problems are gone now, I have audio, video, presence
and instant
messages working like a charm. And most important media
server doesn't flow
thru my server so network load remains very low. I have been
testing for some
days now and I'm quite happy since I still have to stumble
on major problems.
Now some considerations... On a poll onsip.org STUN usage is
very low and
rtpproxy-mediaproxy rule as NAT trasversal solution. Why
don't people use
stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found?
What are main
advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions? I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
thank you all for your two cents ;)
STUN does not work if your NAT is Symmetric. For example all Linux NATs or routers with Linux OS like the Linksys ones. Unless you have full control on what type of NAT your customer will deploy, it will be very hard to stick to an all STUN solution.
--
Andres Network Admin http://www.telesip.net
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers