Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] Recipe for Netmeeting, NAT success

It would seem that I finally have a handle on the syntax of the new
gnugk.ini file if anyone is interested in using the CVS version of
openh323 GNU Gatekeeper.  There's been some substantial differences in
the syntax, language, directives, and even spelling of the new ini
file.  What follows is what seems to work for me with only light testing
(comments sprinkled in by me):

# New and required for CVS


# spelling change follows

# new for CVS - not sure if it's required




# new and required for CVS


The CVS version seems to have fixed the issue of no video in a NM to GM

There are directives in the above new ini file that are held over from
my old ini file but that are not needed.  I left them in there because
a) it makes switching back easier and b) it doesn't seem to hurt
anything i.e. the new gnugk doesn't complain about an ini file that
contains old directives.

I've modified my port ranges from my earlier post.  This has nothing to
do with CVS.  It's just something I've been tweaking for various
reasons.  If you do this too, don't forget to modify your router

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that there are some additional
things I should be doing with the CVS version.  Coming by relevant
documentation for CVS is a little difficult so I'm just mostly winging
it.  But hey; so far it works.

On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 22:23, Marc Williams wrote:
> After much pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth, I finally have what
> appears to be a successful and working LAN, NAT, Gatekeeper (gk),
> Gnomemeeting (GM), and Netmeeting (NM) arrangement.  Please don't ask me
> about the specifics of how to get any of these individual components
> working.  Do what I did and read the manuals, FAQs, mailing lists, etc. 
> Besides, I'm no expert.  An expert wouldn't have taken this long to get
> them all working.  :)  If this doesn't work for you, too bad.  It works
> for me, so I thought I'd share it in case it helps someone else.  Much
> of what is covered here is redundant because it is covered elsewhere
> (although I don't recall seeing UDP 1719 anywhere else).  Well, that may
> be but there's probably not too many places that have it all under one
> roof.  If you've got questions about the whole setup, fire away.  
> Here is my situation:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]