This particular one is on FSK.
No.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 10/15/2015 3:38 PM, Work wrote:
Is this issue on FSK only or 450 also?
Did we ever get a fix for Microcell when in NAT mode on FSK??
—
Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox>
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Just confirmed with the subscriber. If their router is on the DMZ and
routing; no worky. If it's bridging yes worky.
BTW - It's an Asus router.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 10/15/2015 1:29 PM, George Skorup wrote:
> I assume you read my post? Have you ran torch on these customers to
> see what the actual traffic is? I believe they all use an IPSEC
VPN.
> Should work through one layer of NAT (obviously does as you've
seen),
> but I don't know why not also through the SM DMZ which is really
NAT,
> not PAT. What's the term now, NAP-T or something like that is
what we
> all call "NAT" generally.
>
> On 10/15/2015 3:14 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>> BTW - this is with the SM on the 13.4 release (FSK in this
particular
>> case).
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>> On 10/15/2015 1:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we have determined that the new AT&T "WiFi calling"
feature
>>> will not work with double NAT (even when the customer's router
is on
>>> the DMZ). This is the same behavior we've seen on T-mobile. It
seems
>>> to work if the customer router is in bridge mode, or the SM is in
>>> bridge mode.
>>>
>>
>
