Hello, Le vendredi 20 août 2004 à 13:17 +0200, maHo a écrit : > Hello > > Gnomemeeting, good thing isn't convinient for people who are behind the > firewall. > Are there any plans to use something other then H323?. H323 needs lot of > open ports. > One TCP port and 4 UDP ports for audio and video. Using another standard protocol like SIP wouldn't help much as the problem is the same (not precisely with firewalls, but with NAT) as it is also using RTP as transport. > I think the ideal thing should be such situation, that if one peer has > ability to allow incoming connection, conversation should be > established, even if second party is behind the firewall. > That's implemented in GnomeMeeting CVS. If one peer has a public IP address, OR is behind NAT but is using one of the technics mentionned in the FAQ (STUN/IP TRANSLATION/GATEKEEPER PROXY/...), and if the other peer is behind NAT but unconfigured, then the call will be established. The problem is when both peers are behind NAT. If you have time to invest in this and work on "remote NAT port guessing", then it is welcome. > If there arn't such plans, is it possible to do (I could try in spare > time) or I should forget this idea? > > regards > > maHo > > _______________________________________________ > GnomeMeeting-list mailing list > GnomeMeeting-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list -- _ Damien Sandras (o- GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/ //\ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org v_/_ H.323 phone : callto:ils.seconix.com/dsandras seconix com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=