Nothing should hinder you from using STUN with sipX. If the STUN client
guessed the port bindings correctly, there shouldn't be any difference
whether it's NATed or not. However, the problem arises when the STUN
client guessed wrong and you expect sipX to compensate for it.
On Friday, 01 October, 2010 02:06 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
I know that all the sipx remote worker FAQ's and docs say "don't use
an stun server, turn it off, click it out". but for some of us that
just seem to run into all kinds of nat transversal issues at the FAR
end (where we don't have as much control: wifi at starbucks, hotel,
airport), some 3G providers.. some cable providers who send you THEIR
firewall..) has anyone actually TRIED it and made it work?
and, why wouldn't it work? every other sip pbx INSISTS you use stun
servers?
<http://sipx-wiki.calivia.com/index.php/STUN>
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
> *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, World Executive Alliance
* Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
* Best in Email Security,2010: Network Products Guide
* King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap®.
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
