[Serusers] NAT considerations...

[Ricardo Martinez]

And even worst.
There are some kind of NAT that STUN does not work.
You can check the mailing list i think some people call it "crap nat".
Regards,

Ricardo Martinez.-

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Andres [mailto:andres at telesip.net]
> Enviado el: Martes, 05 de Julio de 2005 17:17
> Para: Giovanni Balasso
> CC: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Asunto: Re: [Serusers] NAT considerations...
> 
> 
> Giovanni Balasso wrote:
> 
> >Just some thoughts based on my experience...
> >After months trying to make everything work using 
> rtpproxy-mediaproxy with 
> >almost everything accomplished but video, I tried to switch 
> to stun solution. 
> >All my problems are gone now, I have audio, video, presence 
> and instant 
> >messages working like a charm. And most important media 
> server doesn't flow 
> >thru my server so network load remains very low. I have been 
> testing for some 
> >days now and I'm quite happy since I still have to stumble 
> on major problems.
> >Now some considerations... On a poll onsip.org STUN usage is 
> very low and 
> >rtpproxy-mediaproxy rule as NAT trasversal solution. Why 
> don't people use 
> >stun? Has it some major drawbacks I still haven't found? 
> What are main 
> >advantages of rtpproxy-mediaproxy solutions?
> >I'm really curious to know serusers opinions about this issue.
> >
> >thank you all for your two cents ;)
> >
> >  
> >
> STUN does not work if your NAT is Symmetric.  For example all 
> Linux NATs 
> or routers with Linux OS like the Linksys ones.  Unless you have full 
> control on what type of NAT your customer will deploy, it 
> will be very 
> hard to stick to an all STUN solution.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Andres
> Network Admin
> http://www.telesip.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>