[Serusers] NAT

[Java Rockx]

Great. I'll try it again.

Would still like to know which is the preferred method and which method can handle a higher load
of concurrent callers.

Regards,
Pual

--- "Bruno Lopes F. Cabral" <bruno at openline.com.br> wrote:

> Hello there
> 
> Java Rockx wrote:
> > Andrei,
> > Thanks for the info. But if I understand you're comments
>  > correctly you're saying that either of these configurations
>  > work *without* putting holes in the client's firewalls:
> > 
> > Option 1) Use nathelper and rtpproxy 
> > Option 2) Use mediaproxy
> > 
> > IMHO, I'd be surprised if my config was wrong when I attempted
>  > "Option 1" because I used nothing more than the example ser.cfg
>  > that comes with the source distro.
> 
> I used the example config found at
>
http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ser/sip_router/etc/nathelper.cfg?rev=1.1.2.1
> 
>  > My results were not good because all client side firewalls
>  > required specific UDP ports to be opened. I tried with the
>  > following UA's behind a 2wire DSL router:
> > 
> > Grandstream ATA 486
> > Grandstream BudgeTone BT100
> 
> I also tested these two, and they passed here with
> nathelper/rtpproxy
> 
> Cheers
> !3runo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com