Hi, 

> -----Original Message-----
> Secondly a question: From the two sources I come to 
> understand that is 
> *is* possible to run an MGCP phone behind NAT (opposed to 
> what Florian 
> stated earlier on this list)? My order of an ip10s is going 
> out today, 
> but maybe some of you MGCP folks can give this a try already now and 
> report back?

Hmm, now that would be very welcome indeed.... Someone please prove me wrong
on this account :-))

> Finally I think someone should open a tiny bug note for a 
> better sample 
> mgcp.conf that comes with * - what do you think?

Feel free to build one :-)

> [Quote from an archived message on this list:]
> After spending some time trying to get a DG-104S working behind NAT,
> I finally found the problem.
> 
> I made the incorrect assumption that nat=yes in mgcp.conf works just
> like sip.conf.  The channels within a gateway are treated more closely
> to zap channels than sip channels (from a .conf standpoint).
> 
> What this means is that you have to put nat=yes BEFORE any
> subchannel definitions:
> 
> This works:
> 
> nat=yes
> line => aaln/1
> line => aaln/2
> line => aaln/3
> line => aaln/4
> 
> This doesn't:
> 
> line => aaln/1
> line => aaln/2
> line => aaln/3
> line => aaln/4
> nat=yes
> 
> This makes sense if lines were treated as individual channels through
> NAT, but they aren't.  NAT capability is dictated by the 
> Gateway itself, and
> not each endpoint/subchannel.

Hmmfun. I may try this, but not before the end of the week...

Florian

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Reply via email to