Hi, > -----Original Message----- > Secondly a question: From the two sources I come to > understand that is > *is* possible to run an MGCP phone behind NAT (opposed to > what Florian > stated earlier on this list)? My order of an ip10s is going > out today, > but maybe some of you MGCP folks can give this a try already now and > report back?
Hmm, now that would be very welcome indeed.... Someone please prove me wrong on this account :-)) > Finally I think someone should open a tiny bug note for a > better sample > mgcp.conf that comes with * - what do you think? Feel free to build one :-) > [Quote from an archived message on this list:] > After spending some time trying to get a DG-104S working behind NAT, > I finally found the problem. > > I made the incorrect assumption that nat=yes in mgcp.conf works just > like sip.conf. The channels within a gateway are treated more closely > to zap channels than sip channels (from a .conf standpoint). > > What this means is that you have to put nat=yes BEFORE any > subchannel definitions: > > This works: > > nat=yes > line => aaln/1 > line => aaln/2 > line => aaln/3 > line => aaln/4 > > This doesn't: > > line => aaln/1 > line => aaln/2 > line => aaln/3 > line => aaln/4 > nat=yes > > This makes sense if lines were treated as individual channels through > NAT, but they aren't. NAT capability is dictated by the > Gateway itself, and > not each endpoint/subchannel. Hmmfun. I may try this, but not before the end of the week... Florian _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
