Thanks for your help Vadim. I'll give a try to mediaproxy first even if the RTP proxying is not what I'm looking for. I'd prefer to save bandwidth and let the clients talk P2P.
Mathieu On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Vadim Lebedev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > The stun support is somewhat bastardized since wengo relied on http > tunnelling to resolve NAT related problems. > > > > I can suggest you to try to use mediaproxy with kamaillio or > http://www.mbdsys.com/opensource/htproxy/ > > > > Thanks > Vadim > > > Le 25 mars 09 à 18:57, Mathieu Osty a écrit : > >> Hi everybody, >> >> I'm currently trying to setup an architecture based on a private >> Kamailio server and Qutecom 2.2 RC3 clients (Windows and MacOS X). The >> tricky part is that all of my Qutecom users are behind NATs. >> I thought Qutecom could handle it quite easily as the STUN protocol is >> listed in Qutecom's features. After several days of testing I still >> haven't been able to make it work... It seems that the stun server >> option isn't even used (I've tested the default stun.wengo.fr and >> stun.ekiga.net). Wireshark doesn't show any STUN request. >> I've tried a STUN config with X-lite on the same architecture and it >> seems to work quite well but I really want to stick to Qutecom. >> >> Does Qutecom really support STUN ? If yes, how can I enable it ? >> Is it worth trying the daily snapshots instead of the 2.2 RC3 ? >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> Mathieu >> _______________________________________________ >> QuteCom-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ QuteCom-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev
