I beg to disagree -- we should not create to much workarounds around imperfect clients. In particular, incomplete NAT traversal support is a serious shortcoming in a UA and I would discourage people from using such devices.
Other front to attack would be NATs -- there is an effort in IETF focusing on that, but that's obviously an activity which has no impact on currently installed base.
-jiri
At 01:57 AM 8/23/2004, Richard wrote:
Hi Jesus,
Changing UA is not always a viable solution due to pricing and other technical issues. Every UA has something broken in its implementation and it would be very costly to change it because one thing (in this case, NAT) is broken.
Thanks, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Jesus Rodriguez [mailto:jesusr@voztele.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 8:59 AM To: Richard Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] NAT ping and consumer router
Use an UA that supports it (Sipura or Cisco for example).
Saludos JesusR.
Jesus Rodriguez VozTelecom Sistemas, S.L. jesusr@voztele.com http://www.voztele.com Tel. 902360305
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/