|
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:53:46 -0400 > From: Christian Jaeger <chrjae gmail com> > Message-ID: > <75514ef21003160953m5f4a240cvb584fe267be42aa1 mail gmail com> > > >> > I'm pretty sure I have a definitive answer. > >> A definitive answer for what? Or do you mean you don't have an answer? > > The question was whether special provision is needed for firewalls and > > routers, for making outbound calls.? As far as I can tell, the answer is an > > unequivocal NO. > AFAIK this is not true, it's more complicated. > From: ael <law_ence dev ntlworld com> > > Absolutely. There are many and various routers out in the wild with > a wide variety of behaviours. > 1 user with 1 particular router can't give "an unequivocal NO." > > When someone has traced the behaviour with wireshark and the like on several > routers, and read & understood the relevant documents including the STUN rfc > then perhaps one can make some tentative suggestions. All right, I found it. Here, for the record: http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Internet_ports_used_by_Ekiga "If you are behind a router, Ekiga has extensive and improved NAT support thanks to STUN. In 99% of the cases, you do not have any configuration to do, and you can even be reachable from the outside without any port forwarding." I'm part of the 99%. That's good enough for me? Is it wrong? (I need a _concise_ statement, though, please.) Thanks for your help, guys. Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. |