Issues with NAT (Support for VPN and/or IPv6)

[aca905]

In my environment, I have a firewall that doesn't handle UDP NAT/Forwarding very well. Especially since there are many client machines using the same port ranges.

Some providers offer tunneling (VPN) and/or IPv6 support to overcome NAT related issues.

Does freephoneline and/or fongo support either? I have implemented full IPv6 support and it would be the ideal solution for me.

Thanks,

Keith

[bridonca]

As far as I know, Fongo does not support IPV6. Fongo does nothing to stop you from using their service through a VPN, but again, as far as I know, they do not actually supply a VPN. You would have to get that done through another provider.

Not that that would be a bad idea. SIP VOIP over IPV4 NAT is just one kludge after another. It is amazing it works as well as it does!

[aca905]

That's what I thought. The real issue is that UDP SIP was not well designed to handle NAT and most Firewalls handle UDP badly period, due to the lack of established connections/sessions like TCP. On top of that firewalls need to route the RTP packets (again UDP) blindly to only one IP.

The VPN and IPv6 solve this by allowing routable, direct 1:1 ip communication directly between the client and server.

If I were using a simple ATA device it could be solved by reducing the RTP port range and using UPnP or port triggering, but alas, I have implemented an Asterisk server in my home to provide extensions to each room and terminate multiple trunks.

I really wish providers would step up to the plate and finish their IPv6 implementations... it's not that hard and cost almost nothing these days.

*end rant*

[bridonca]

If you are doing asterisk, it would probably make your life easier if you set it as a VPS elsewhere, in a data center that has as decent IPV4 connection, and then set up a client that can tunnel to the VPS.

[aca905]

Thought of that. But I couldn't find any that were free or close to it. Any suggestions?