[asterisk-dev] STUN support in chan_sip revisited

[CDR]

Just want to point out that this debate is of the utmost importance for a
lot of people. One of my clients has 15.000 clients all of them behind a NAT
it is a nightmare to make this work.  So let's make sure that it works even
if it does not follow any RFC.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault at viagenie.ca
> wrote:

> On 2010-08-09 09:28, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> >>> and the proxy (service provider) should do NAT traversal.
> >>
> >> No. In this discussion, I only care about Asterisk.  It would be futile
> >> to impose constraints on the service provider.
> >
> > Not explicit but implicit. If Asterisk is behind NAT and it does not do
> > any NAT traversal (because the proxy does not support RFC5626) then this
> > implies that the proxy has to do the NAT traversal or it wont work.
>
> Yes, absolutely. The service provider has to support either standard NAT
> traversal (i.e. RFC 5626) or do some sort of non-standard NAT traversal
> if it has any expectation of working with clients that are behind NATs.
> This is true in any situation, not only with Asterisk.
>
> Simon
> --
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server        --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> vCard 4.0               --> http://www.vcarddav.org
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-dev mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20100809/65d5696d/attachment.htm