server for the
Cisco 79xx config files.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Capouch
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 3:12 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT
Michael Giagnocavo wrote:
I think his point is that for a commercial rollout (say, a VSP), IAX is not
practical for all clients right now. It's not strange to have a personal
preference that is technically better but not commercially viable. That's
not an insult, just how things are sometimes.
Exactly.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Giagnocavo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
I think his point
- Original Message -
From: Matt Riddell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
Michael Giagnocavo wrote:
I think his point
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:45:46 -0600, Ryan Courtnage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, you can do this, just requires some port forwarding and special
considerations in sip.conf.
You are missing the point. There is no *solution* to SIP NAT
traversal. All there is are *workarounds*, otherwise known as
NONSENSE
Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:45:46 -0600, Ryan Courtnage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, you can do this, just requires some port forwarding and special
considerations in sip.conf.
You are missing the point. There is no *solution* to SIP NAT
: October 29, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists; Asterisk Users Mailing List -
Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
NONSENSE
Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:45:46 -0600, Ryan Courtnage [EMAIL PROTECTED
] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
NONSENSE
Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:45:46 -0600, Ryan Courtnage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yep, you can do this, just requires some port forwarding and special
considerations in sip.conf.
You are missing the point
, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
Karl
Are you saying it is nonsense that there difficulties using Asterisk and
SIP
behind a NAT server. Or are you saying it is nonsense that SIP and NAT
are
dangerous together?
Bill Seddon
-Original Message-
From
All there is are *workarounds*, otherwise known as bad and
rather dangerous hacks. Whether it works or not is highly dependent on
external factors that you don't usually control. It also depends on
the type of NAT/PAT your router is using, ie the router's particular
NAT/PAT implementation.
.
- Original Message
From: Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], Asterisk Users Mailing List -
Non-Commercial Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
Date: 29/10/04 14:30
On the client side, I'm not sure
what the risk is to say a SIP phone that has 5060 and some rtp ports
forwarded to it. Maybe someone can come in and list the threats to
both ends of a double NAT setup? I'm sure hundreds of us would be very
interested in this!
Here is a simple example. A user with
- Original Message -
From: Stewart Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
On the client side, I'm not sure
what the risk is to say a SIP phone that has 5060 and some rtp ports
-Commercial Discussion'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
Karl
Are you saying it is nonsense that there difficulties using Asterisk
and SIP
behind a NAT server. Or are you saying it is nonsense that SIP and
NAT
--SNIP ALL--
IAX is no adequate replacement option for SIP either.
--SNIP ALL--
What?! How on earth could you come to that conclusion?!
--
Cheers,
Matt Riddell
___
http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
, 2004 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
--SNIP ALL--
IAX is no adequate replacement option for SIP either.
--SNIP ALL--
What?! How on earth could you come to that conclusion?!
--
Cheers,
Matt Riddell
___
http
?
- Original Message -
From: Matt Riddell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
--SNIP ALL--
IAX is no adequate replacement option
Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Suggestion re: SIP/NAT/*
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 21:53 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
Probably since there are so many SIP devices out there now and only a
couple
IAX. In the future it is an awsome replacement.
So you would rather drive a '70s pinto instead
I'm attempting to set up an Asterisk server with clients as follows:
SIP Client 1 (HT 286) === NAT === Internet === NAT === * Server === SIP
Client (HT 286) 2
The crux of the matter is this: I have a client behind a NAT trying to
connect to an * behind a NAT. I'm looking for suggestions on
I'm attempting to set up an Asterisk server with clients as follows:
SIP Client 1 (HT 286) === NAT ===
=== Internet ===
=== NAT === * Server === SIP Client (HT 286) 2
The crux of the matter is this: I have a client behind a NAT trying to
connect to an * behind a NAT. I'm looking for
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:00:46 -0400, Richard Branham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm attempting to set up an Asterisk server with clients as follows:
SIP Client 1 (HT 286) === NAT === Internet === NAT === * Server === SIP
Client (HT 286) 2
Double NAT ?! You may as well try to find a cure for
On Thu, 2004-28-10 at 14:00 -0400, Richard Branham wrote:
I'm attempting to set up an Asterisk server with clients as follows:
SIP Client 1 (HT 286) === NAT === Internet === NAT === * Server === SIP
Client (HT 286) 2
Yep, you can do this, just requires some port forwarding and special
22 matches
Mail list logo
