It still doesn't negate the fact that agressive-nat shouldn't be used it breaks may may things. If it wasn't being detected properly then the local-network-acl or the inbound-nat-acl was wrong.
/b On May 24, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > It is easy to just say that the other end should be fixed, there are enough > software titles that do that already and end up not working well. I bring > this up because I am chasing down the exposure of a bug in other VoIP > software that used to not be present in a them->FS exchange but tightening of > the FS code on what it accepts exposed the bug. So when it starts to get > discussed that the other side should fix itself, I feel it important to bring > this internet founding principle up. _______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-dev UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-dev http://www.freeswitch.org
