> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:53:46 -0400
> From: Christian Jaeger <chr...@gmail.com>
> Message-ID:
> <75514ef21003160953m5f4a240cvb584fe267be42...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> >> > I'm pretty sure I have a definitive answer.
> >> A definitive answer for what? Or do you mean you don't have an answer?
> > The question was whether special provision is needed for firewalls and
> > routers, for making outbound calls.? As far as I can tell, the answer is an
> > unequivocal NO.
> AFAIK this is not true, it's more complicated.
> From: ael <law_ence....@ntlworld.com>
>
> Absolutely. There are many and various routers out in the wild with
> a wide variety of behaviours.
> 1 user with 1 particular router can't give "an unequivocal NO."
>
> When someone has traced the behaviour with wireshark and the like on several
> routers, and read & understood the relevant documents including the STUN rfc
> then perhaps one can make some tentative suggestions.
All right, I found it. Here, for the record:
http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Internet_ports_used_by_Ekiga
"If you are behind a router, Ekiga has extensive and improved NAT
support thanks to STUN. In 99% of the cases, you do not have any
configuration to do, and you can even be reachable from the outside
without any port forwarding."
I'm part of the 99%.
That's good enough for me? Is it wrong? (I need a _concise_ statement,
though, please.)
Thanks for your help, guys.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/_______________________________________________
ekiga-list mailing list
ekiga-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
