similar to: [NAT] * + private IP + locked-down firewalls?

fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> writes: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though. Especially on Windows.) >

Is there support for NAT-PMP in shorewall? If so, where can I RTFM? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More formally, this

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

On 12 November 2015 at 21:29, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: >> According to an online NAT check service, around 50% of NATs in the >> wild have this problem, making this a very real issue: >> http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php > > Are you referring to port restricted NAT in the

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole > punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my > network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because > one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

Hi, I hope this hasn't already been discussed to death, but I didn't find the answer through Google. In short, my question is: how can I advertise a Samba server through UPnP/Network Discovery? I'm currently using Samba 3.2.6, but should be able to upgrade if needed. I am trying to build an IPv6-only network, for now just for testing purposes. The problem I am having is that

Hi all, -------- I have a Asterisk at a public Network (official IP address). In the local network I have isntalled a Snom 200 IP phone and in my home network (behind NAT) a Snom 100 device. I can dial the Snom200 device from my home location without any problems but the Snom200 can not dial me. It always gets a "we do not rely". I tried to forward the SIP Port (5060) UDP via UPnP

I decided to give the whole family IP phones for christmas, all hooked into my asterisk server, so all the nephews can have their own lines. However, one of the phones I got was the SNOM 200. That's worked fine for me on my own network, but I'm having bad luck getting it to work behind NAT talking to Asterisk. It talks to my termination/origination provider, which seems to ruthlessly

Hello; we are looking to replace our current PBX with a *-box; it is connected to ONE ppp isdn connection that is terminated by the NC. We got on this box 4 msn's configured. currently we are working with pstn fxo's behind the PBX; it works but we can't use the CSID information behind it. We want to migrate and keep the MSN's to decide routing in combination with the CID.

On 12 November 2015 at 01:15, fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> wrote: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though.

I'm looking at buying a NORCO DS-1220 and it comes with a NORCO 4618 PCI-X card (4 port eSATA, with a port multiplier on the card or the chassis). I've been trying to pin down whether or not CentOS will see all 12 drives, and I haven't seen anything that is definitive. I see that the kernel module sata_sil24 supports the SiI3124 chip on the NORCO 4618 card, but I haven't found

I have 2 SIP phones (Cisco 7960 & XTen) behind a NAT provided by a Linksys firewall that supports UPnP. The Asterisk server has a public IP. Here are the problems that I am having with this configuration... 1. The 2 SIP phones can call MeetMe and have a conference but cannot call each other. (Yes, they connect but no audio either direction) 2. I have verify=yes in the sip.conf for both

Hello Tom, I tried the new UPnP support of shorewall, olny to stumble upon a LinuxIGD bug. Specificaly, the UPnP chain is read as UPn from the upnpd.conf . I double checked it, there some bug in the upnpd, it doesn''t process 4 lettered names correctly. Could you change this chains'' name to something a little longer? -- Costas Cavouracis <cca@freemail.gr> My PGP keys:

Hi All, We've got msidn configured: Port 1: TE-mode BRI S/T interface line (for phone lines) -> Protocol: DSS1 (Euro ISDN) -> childcnt: 2 -------- mISDN_close: fid(3) isize(131072) inbuf(0x8fd5060) irp(0x8fd5060) iend(0x8fd5060) and running on Asterisk 1.4.21.2: pbx*CLI> misdn show stacks BEGIN STACK_LIST: * Port 1 Type TE Prot. PMP L2Link UP L1Link:UP Blocked:0 Debug:0

Proprietary by open source (sounds like a oxymoron) I am looking at doing a project that well use theora/vorbis/Dirac I am expecting to get why cant it play on my ipod/PMP? I am expecting to get you must be using some proprietary format? tom_a_sparks __________________________________________________________________________________ Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to

Has anyone successfully got UPnP and Shorewall working together ? If so, has anyone created documentation on how to get it working ? Thanks in advance, Mark

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote: > I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel > chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started > experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated > for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine > instructions, but I'm most likely just doing

Hrm. This problem shouldn't be target specific. I am pretty sure prologue / epilogue inserter aligns stack correctly if there are stack objects with greater than default stack alignment requirement. Seems to be the initial alloca() instruction should specify 16 byte alignment? Evan On Jul 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote:

Hola LLVMers, I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine instructions, but I'm most likely just doing something wrong and I'm hoping you can set me in