On Sep 12, 2009, at 4:06 PM, M. Ranganathan wrote:
> However, nothing can be guaranteed to work unless you are able to > set up port forwarding as Michael has described below. You may well > not be so lucky. Which is once again, why I would want support for two interfaces (one public IP, outside the firewall and one private). > If you cannot setup port forwarding and are not behind a symmetric > NAT, sipxbridge is simply not guaranteed to work correctly. That > configuration will not be supported in general. The product is > geared towards the business environment where control over firewall > settings is a given. There are many business environments where "control over firewall settings" is not a given. Our network is controlled by the University's IT department. I can get public address outside the firewall for any system I have that requires them, as well as internal IP addresses for those devices I do not need or want on the public net. For the project for which I want to use sipX, I have researchers in various other places (including hotels during international travel) as well as faculty and staff in our department. It seems to be your argument that I am better served adding another router/firewall whose sole purpose is to forward sip connections to my internal net (adding cost, complexity and another point of failure) rather than just using the second ethernet interface that my sipX server has for free. I work quite closely with many other Universities and companies and I find that our situation is not unusual. I think it is great that you have enabled this to work with a single IP (where one can configure one's firewall settings and sometimes in other cases). I also think supporting multiple interfaces has value. /carmi _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
