Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] Gnomemeeting behind a Cisco Nat Firewall
- From: Marc Williams <marcw onlymooo com>
- To: gnomemeeting list <gnomemeeting-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] Gnomemeeting behind a Cisco Nat Firewall
- Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:34:24 -0600
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:11, Damien Sandras wrote:
> >
> > Since gnugk allows for specific h.245 and RTP ports to be used, these
> > specified ports can be opened at the router. This is what I did and I
> > can tell you it works great and my GK is definitely NOT sitting out on a
> > public IP. This works well for both NM and GM users both inside and
> > outside my LAN. Everyone can call everyone else on both sides as long
> > as they are registered to the GK. If you would like, you can call me
> > through my GK and see and hear for yourself.
> >
>
> You are right, but that only works *iff* your router natively supports
> H.323. If your router doesn't natively support H.323 it is not possible
> to work, but you are here addressing a different point, the original
> thread was about the possibilities to use a GK to make gnomemeeting work
> from behind a NAT gateway, not about the possibilities to use a GK
> itself behind a NAT gateway. The prerequisite of having the GK on a
> public IP is only if you have GnomeMeeting working without IP
> translation, without port forwarding, behind a NAT gateway that doesn't
> natively support H.323 :)
Ok, I certainly know when to defer to the h.323 expert. But maybe this
is an opportunity for me to learn something.
By saying that it's only because my router is h.323 aware that I am able
to do what I'm doing, I think you are implying that there are other
dynamic ports being used behind the scenes that I am not specifying in
my gnugk.ini file. I've got my h.245 and RTP covered (and also q.931
and t.120 but I don't think they count for purposes of this discussion)
as well as the usual static ports. Am I understanding your implication
correctly? If so, what other ports are being used? it was my perhaps
mistaken understanding that h.323 only used dynamic port assignments for
h.245 and rtp.
And thanks for covering this with me. Even though this might have
strayed a little more than either of us originally intended, it's good
stuff to know.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]