> From: M. Ranganathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Robert Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) > >> > >> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:44 -0400, Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) wrote: > >> > > Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 15:05 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote: > >> > > > Note that with the NAT traversal feature, video > should work for > >> > > > any all-SIP call. > >> > > > >> > > That is, any all-SIP call that doesn't require media bridging. > >> > > >> > Can you be more specific about what you mean by media bridging? > >> > >> Where the media goes through sipXrelay. > > > > The NAT traversal feature will do NAT compensation for > all-SIP calls > > for both the audio and video sessions. For example, if you have a > > sipXecs and softclient 'A' deployed behind a NAT and softclient 'B' > > deployed behind a remote NAT. Suppose that 'A' and 'B' are both > > registered against sipXecs then 'A' and 'B' will be able to > have full > > audio+video (as well as IM, but that's not really media) across the > > NATs. The NAT Traversal feature will allocate a Media > Relay session > > for each media session type on the sipXrelay. > > You may also want to include fax in case remote workers want > to send fax to to each other. >
Good point. I never tried the fax scenarios however if the endpoints involved obbey the general offer-answer model rules, things should work fine. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
