-users] Polycom behind NAT won't register to *
server
behind ALG
Henry L.Coleman wrote:
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
- Original Message -
From: Eric ManxPower Wieling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial
Discussion asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Polycom behind NAT won't register
Henry L.Coleman wrote:
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
I’ve been tearing my hair out trying to get a Polycom phone (behind a NAT) to
register to an * box behind a Cisco SIP ALG. With known good credentials
configured on the phone and in *, I get 403 Bad Auth when trying to register.
If I put the phone onto the same LAN as * it works fine without
Polycom's were simply not originally built for multi location VoIP. There
is no NAT support in the Polycom's. 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
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
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
