24 May
2010
24 May
'10
8:44 p.m.
It still doesn't negate the fact that agressive-nat shouldn't be used it breaks may may things. If it wasn't being detected properly then the local-network-acl or the inbound-nat-acl was wrong. /b On May 24, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
It is easy to just say that the other end should be fixed, there are enough software titles that do that already and end up not working well. I bring this up because I am chasing down the exposure of a bug in other VoIP software that used to not be present in a them->FS exchange but tightening of the FS code on what it accepts exposed the bug. So when it starts to get discussed that the other side should fix itself, I feel it important to bring this internet founding principle up.