You might try entering your external NAT IP into the Polycom config.
I've found that if you specify the external IP, Polycom's generally work
better thru NAT. This is one area where Cisco is superior to Polycom.
On Cisco, you just enable NAT and you don't have to specify the external
IP. Of
I'm running FS on Amazons' EC2 compute cloud (AWS) and have 30 Polycom
phones working happily in this config.
I modified the Internal profile in
/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/sip_profiles/internal.xml to include:
param name=aggressive-nat-detection value=true/
param name=NDLB-force-rport
Did you request public IP's for your EC2 instance?
/b
On Apr 9, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Chris Fowler wrote:
I'm running FS on Amazons' EC2 compute cloud (AWS) and have 30 Polycom
phones working happily in this config.
I modified the Internal profile in
Hey, this would be great info to put on the wiki... (hint hint wink wink
nudge nudge) :)
-MC
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Chris Fowler ch...@fowler.cc wrote:
I'm running FS on Amazons' EC2 compute cloud (AWS) and have 30 Polycom
phones working happily in this config.
I modified the
Brian: Did you request public IP's for your EC2 instance?
Yes; there is an Elastic IP (EIP) associated with the instance.
Also specify the EIP in vars.xml
X-PRE-PROCESS cmd=set data=bind_server_ip=insert EIP here/
X-PRE-PROCESS cmd=set data=external_rtp_ip=insert EIP here/
This is because the Polycom doesn't support STUN, RPORT or any other
nat traversal technology. You have a couple of choices please review http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/NAT_Traversal
Also review the NDLB-force-rport option for the sofia profile to
assume rport. CAUTION this breaks things
