What I actually meant was using either rtpproxy with nathelper **OR** using mediaproxy.
I've had better success with mediaproxy because rtpproxy/nathelper seem to still require users to open UDP ports for SIP and RTP in their firewall whereas mediaproxy does not require end users to do anything to their firewall.
My experience has been that when using mediaproxy a STUN server isn't necessary, although I'm have some problems right now with sems/sipums voicemail because it is trying to send RTP media to NATed clients on non-routeable IP addresses.
Anyhow, when using rtpproxy with nathelper we've always had to allow specific UDP ports on end user firewalls.
Regards, Paul
--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" bruno@openline.com.br wrote:
Hi there
Java Rockx wrote:
Look at the <ser-source>/modules/rtpproxy
don't you mean modules/nathelper ? :-)
and <ser-source>/modules/mediaproxy directories.
There are README files. Personally, I'd recommend using mediaproxy because it seems to be more effective with handling NATed clients. There is a sample cfg file in the mediaproxy directory.
can comment on mediaproxy, but I'm using nathelper on SER 0.8.14 with rtpproxy (from CVS, the tar linked on voip-info.org don't work) and example found at
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?r...
and it worked at first, like a charm
in fact, it worked so well that I'm still asking myself if I was supposed to configure anything on clients to make it work or not (i.e. Outbound proxy or Stun server like in grandstream phones and adapters)
if anyone can enlight me on this, I'd appreciate
Cheers !3runo from Brazil
P.S. rtpproxy for SER 0.8.14 can be get with cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.ser.berlios.de:/cvsroot/ser co rtpproxy
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com