On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Kevin P. Fleming <kpflem...@digium.com> wrote: > On 02/29/2012 08:22 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote: >
[...] > The number of 'plain' SIP endpoints deployed behind consumer-grade NAT > devices talking to Asterisk servers on public IP addresses is in the > millions, if not the tens of millions. As has already been posted, Asterisk > itself handles all the far-end NAT traversal duties necessary for this to > work; neither the remote endpoint nor the NAT device need to do anything > special, nor do they require any configuration. > > Rather than post a lengthy exposition on how widespread your network is and > how technically astute your people are, you would probably accomplish much > more to setup a simple test scenario as has been previously suggested, and > if it does not work for you, post the details of the scenario and the > failure here. > We use SIP and IAX interchangeably, but had less hassle with IAX. The topic of the discussion on this thread was that SIP is so awesome and that IAX is a peice of crap. My point of view is that we've had many problems with SIP and NAT and that IAX just works great for us, and that in *our* experience IAX has worked better for us. Just to clear my head up a bit: are you supporting the argument that SIP is better for Asterisk than IAX? -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
