<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">This does not make any sense. It limits outbound connections based on source port? rport would make us tell the guy the port he DID come from, so the nat mapping is in place and working because we got the packet from that port.<div><br><div><div>On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Most of my customers have forwarded ports in their firewalls/routers. Those ports will not be used if rport is turned on.<div><br></div><div>I currently got a problem with a customer who is using an old Windows 2000 server as firewall/router. It wont let packets through when using rport. It would work if rport was turned off and all communication was done using the configured port.<br>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Brian West <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian@freeswitch.org">brian@freeswitch.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
You want rport otherwise NAT HELL will begin.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
/b<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Gauffin wrote:<br>
<br>
> Well, yes. But snom can only turn off rport through provisioning and only in the latest firmware.<br>
><br>
> It would be great if it could be turned off in FS too, per user account.<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>