H.320 gateways a MEGACO / ITU
matt at ASCEND.COM
Wed Mar 31 10:31:11 EST 1999
To be more accurate, PER may not work fine through a NAT function. If your
firewall doesn't do NAT, then PER should have no problems.
At 09:34 AM 3/31/99 -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
>There's another problem - the use of PER combined with protocol-
>embedded addresses greatly complicates operation through firewalls.
>Not that I'm a fan of text-based protocols - I absolutely am not.
>But PER-encoded signaling streams could force the use of firewall
>proxies, which has unfortunate performance implications.
>I'm not certain that I understand the point about transcoding -
>it's going to have to take place, anyway, whether the megaco protocol
>is text-based or not.
>At 11:14 AM 3/31/99 +0200, Ami Amir wrote:
>>There are many who feel that ASN.1 is too heavy and complex for simple
>>devices, and should be avoided. This was one of the major reasons for the
>>emergence of SIP.
>Member of the Scientific Staff
>Nokia IP Telephony
>127 West State Street
>Ithaca, New York 14850
>+1 607 273 0724 x81 (office)
>+1 607 275 3610 (fax)
>+1 607 280 0010 (mobile)
>shore at ithaca-viennasys.com
More information about the sg16-avd