Re: Video chat, voice over IP, video conferencing, and the use of NAT.
On Son, 06 Nov 2005, Herman Robak wrote:
> >>The same for all kinds of peer-to-peer file transfers.
> >
> >Wow. So all users behind NAT addresses are unable to use p2p
> >networks? Now strange, as NAT networks are quite common. Does this
> >affect all P2P networks?
>
> I should think so. The solution is either
>
> 1) Manually configured port forwarding (a hassle, requires access to the
> NAT)
> 2) Port forwarding automatically triggered by the clients, using
> Universal Plug and Play (uPnP). This is considered a security hole.
>
> I have uPnP support in my router from NextGenTel. Windows clients
> use it. Hardly any clients for Linux use uPnP. It is a boneheaded
> solution to a problem that shouldn't have been there in the first
> place. We should have proper static IPs, one for each PC. There
> may be too few IPv4 addresses to go around, but that was what IPv6
> was meant to address, years ago!
why not simple install an VoIP Proxy on the firewall/server? This could a
H323 gateway for GnomeMeeting, or an Sipproxy for the newer clients.
h323 is hopefully dying soon, and Genomemeeting in the cvs version also
supports SIP. SIP is very easy to route, and the package sipproxyd just works
well.
A proxy server also adds the capability to setup a simple QoS for the
internet connection, and the ability to limit the number connections..
(and reroute them to an asteriksserver to a voicebox or .. )
--
Florian Reitmeir
Reply to: