[Serusers] NAT ping and consumer router
Jiri Kuthan
jiri at iptel.org
Mon Aug 23 02:56:21 CEST 2004
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 at voztele.com]
>Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 8:59 AM
>To: Richard
>Cc: serusers at 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 at voztele.com
>http://www.voztele.com
>Tel. 902360305
>-------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
More information about the sr-users
mailing list