Michael Jerris wrote:
> with a client that does not support stun or at least rfc 3581 the results
> are much more sketchy and require more hacks on the server side, but with
> enough effort can almost always be made to work.
Thanks Mike for the feedback. If a user has a problem using my FS serve
Tim Uckun wrote:
> Yes I get issues quite a bit with the server being behind a firewall.
> IAX is much nicer in this circumstance.
I just set up an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and nat goes away.
I have native IPv6 over ADSL now, as part of a trial that my ISP is
conducting. As a result, one end of t
>
> Do you sometimes/often get issues where SIP (UDP5060) or RTP (UDPwhatever)
> ports fail being opened dynamically to work properly, or does SIP today
> really work well over NAT firewalls?
>
Yes I get issues quite a bit with the server being behind a firewall.
IAX is much nicer in this circums
with the right clients, it nearly always works well. with a client that does
not support stun or at least rfc 3581 the results are much more sketchy and
require more hacks on the server side, but with enough effort can almost always
be made to work.
Mike
On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Fred-145 w
Hello
In a thread back in March, I read that support for IAX in FreeSwitch is a
bit of kludge and since there's not much demand for it, chances are it won't
improve in the foreseeable future.
So I'd like some feedback from users who routinely connect to a FreeSwitch
server from various venues, i
