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(a)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(a)voztele.com
http://www.voztele.com
Tel. 902360305
-------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan
http://iptel.org/~jiri/