[Serusers] NAT traversal

[Jan Janak]

On 20-07-2005 09:35, Greger V. Teigre wrote:
> Omer,
> I'm not aware of anybody using mangler?! (Is this really true?)

  Yes, that module is somehow outdated and has been mostly replaced by
  nathelper.

   Jan.

> The simplest solution (see my earlier post today on STUN) would be to use 
> STUN if the endpoints have an ok implementation.
> If not, you can use nathelper to change Contact (fix_nated_contact) and 
> fix_nated_sdp to change the media IP. You will still have a problem with 
> finding the RTP port, so unless one endpoint is public or support 
> direction=active, you need to proxy the rtp stream.
> 
> Or if you have symmetric NATs, you need to use RTP proxy anyway because 
> incoming calls to symmetric NATs must be proxied regardless of whether the 
> other endpoint is public or NATed (unless it supports direction=active).
> 
> g-)
> 
> Omer Tapankul wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm working for a nat traversal scenerio.
> >The case is both endpoints are behind NAT (ADSL clients) and SER is
> >on the real network. In this project I dont want to implement a rtp
> >proxy because I have limited bandwidth on real network. I want
> >clients to pass signaling to me and rtp directly between eachother.
> >
> >I have tried some configurations with module mangler but i could not
> >manage to create rtp session properly.
> >
> >What do you think about the solution and  if you can mail a sample
> >configuration I will be very happy.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Omer
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers