Le mercredi 14 mars 2007 à 10:57 -0300, Gustavo Maciel Dias Vieira a écrit : > Em Qua, 2007-03-14 às 14:42 +0100, Damien Sandras escreveu: > > > One last thing, the key you mentioned above is in the NAT section of > > the > > > configuration. However, my host *isn't* behind NAT, it is behind a > > > firewall that behaves like NAT except for the address translation > > magic. > > > Is it possible that Ekiga detects it is not behind NAT and decides > > not > > > to send the packet? > > > > Exactly !! > > > > That is the reason why it doesn't send it. I had forgotten that > > detail. > > Good! Problem detected. > > I hope I'm not being a pest, but do you plan to do something about it? > > I believe statefull UDP firewalls without NAT are not that common now, > but still many people are behind them. And I'm sure this type of > firewall will become more common as we move to IPv6... >
I suppose so, NAT will disappear and such firewalls will appear. > The solution is the same as in the NAT case, because the definition of a > established UDP "session" is the same in the two cases (NAT and > statefull fw). The problem is detecting that you are behind such > firewall, as sending this refresh packets "just in case" seems a bit > silly for the general case. Anyway, at least a note in the FAQ would be > helpful for us behind this type os firewall. > > In any case, thank you for looking at this problem! Please report a bug about it on bugzilla, and I will implement something. Always sending that packet is not so silly. Perhaps I could add an option "NAT Keep Alive" : - Automatic - Forced with a parametrable delay. I can do it very easily. -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\ Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list