Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] Re: GnomeMeeting 1.2 and Skype

[Miguel Rodríguez Pérez <miguelrp gmail com>]

Is there something in the SIP/H323 stabndard that mandate UDP appart
from being the obvious way to transport RTP? If the standards only
mandate RTP, and not RTP/UDP, then it should be perfectly "legal" to
use RTP/SCTP (and maybe fallback to RTP/UDP for compatibility).


Just 1¢...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:36:58 +0200, Kilian Krause <kk verfaction de> wrote:
> Hi Damien,
> 
> > > Anyone knows what's happening on the side of the SIP/H323 standards with
> > > regards to NAT? Any planned standard enhancements?
> > >
> >
> > The problem is not with SIP or H.323. The problem is with NAT itself.
> > The day when the Linux Kernel and most hardware routers will natively
> > support SIP (or H.323), then you will have no problem to go through NAT
> > with software like GnomeMeeting.
> 
> the whole issue would ameliorate if UDP was replaced by SCTP in H323 and
> SIP. Then routers could use regular connection tracking like with TCP
> and you still got the speed and "reliability" of UDP. That way most
> probably the IETF will "fix" SIP over NAT as a general resolution.
> 
> > Perhaps it is too late for H.323, but most hardware routers start
> > supporting SIP natively, which means that you can be behind that router,
> > and call anybody without any problem. Of course, at least one port
> > forward is still required if you want to be able to receive incoming
> > calls.
> 
> unless you have UPnP on the router and your workstation does advertise
> the port for you. Then the router might magically "know" where you are
> without having you to specify it manually.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
>  Kilian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> GnomeMeeting-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
> 
> 
> 
>