You're right, there are a few routes that mess up with the signalling (Planet ones) and do not rewrite everything correctly or do even some more strange things. One possible solution (if you cannot reconfigure the router) is to change default RAS/signalling ports for the gatekeeper, so the router does not notice RAS/signaling messages and will not have a chance to change it. ----- Original Message ----- From: <supertom64@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:21 PM hi, i am new to the list and did already a search about the NAT Q&A but couldn´t find an answer for my problem right now. we use videophones with the gnugk which works really pretty fine except some problems with several NAT Routers. the most problem we have is that the phone can connect the outside gk with public ip and register correctly but at the channel setup the reply IP is setup as an private IP. isn´t there a way to rewrite the IP at the channel setup to the correct IP, because the gk already knows the real IP of the phone behind the NAT (from registration) and the private IP´s are also well known. (i know that many SIP Provider will do this to establish connections with broken NATs) i guess that some broken NAT routers try to rewrite the IP address at translation but don´t do it the right way or as deep as it is necessary for H.323. e.g. any phone or also a child gk behind a draytek vigor 2200X register with the public IP instead of the private IP at registration. gnugk states a NAT=0 (did s.b. know what are the different NAT Types?) at the gk.log file with -ttttt i assume that gnugk guess that the phone is without NAT or that there is no translation necessary. as an result at the channel setup the reply IP of the phone behind the draytek router is an private IP which couldn´t obviously work. it did not matter if i use dmz or portforwarding the result is always the same, the other side can here and see me but i can´t nothing receive at my side. i could expand the list to some more routers e.g. some zyxel, dlink, netgear, devolo etc.this is because of the upcomming and at the moment mainstream broadband connections over ADSL with one dynamic IP (and a disconnection every 24h) not really a fortune. also setting up a proxy gk as a child gk behind such a NAT router will bring some improvements. (can i force the child (proxy) gk to be a NATed Endpoint? could STUN which is already included in the openh323 protocol bring some improvment? Any hints are warmest welcome :-) thx in advance TOM ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________________ List: Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id?49 Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
