[asterisk-users] Polycom behind NAT won't register to * server behind ALG

[Henry L.Coleman]

I think what Alex was trying to say was that Polycom IP Phones are an
example of immature product development. While they look very nice and
have a nice display the product doesn't compete very well compared to
other manufacturers.
The two most obvious flaws are that they cannot be NAT'ed so they cannot
be used as Off Premise eXtensions phones and the other being that they
take so long to configure and re-boot. I have a golden rule with any phone
that I plan on installing for a customer....If I can't get it working
within 20 minutes then don't use it. I'm afraid Polycom breaks my golden
rule.
With such a lot of competition in this market they should have sorted this
out two years ago.

-- 
Henry L. Coleman.



< Alex Balashov>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Matthew Warren wrote:
>
>> We have several networks, being an ISP, and have found that when
>> transversing one network say 192.168.2.x with the * box on a 192.168.1.x
>> the polycoms were able to communicate however sustained a lot of one way
>> audio problems.  Moving thim onto the same network is the only thing we
>> have been able to reliable do.
>
>    Forgive what may be a naively misplaced line of questioning, but what
> precisely does this have to do with NAT as such?  Unless you mean to
> imply otherwise, it would seem to me you are referring to 192.168.1.0/24
> and 192.168.2.0/24 being intermediated by way of a router -- but not
> necessarily NAT'd?
>
> --
> Alex Balashov
> Evariste Systems
> Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
> Tel    :
> Direct :
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>