Henry Ping wrote:
> The poke-port code was added in mid 2004 and should be
in the most recent
> RealPlayer release.
>
> We use "Symmetric RTP" and fallback to
"TCP Tunneling" as described in the
> reference link you provided. It's been working well for
us.
>
> In addition, we also provided RTSP proxy(Application
Level Gateway), though
> I think it's being phased out by Real.
If the phone is old, it will have a micro-core based player
on it and not Helix based. In that case it is very old and
may not have NAT poking.
--greg.
>
> Henry
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Hyche [mailto:ehyche real.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:46 AM
>> To: 'Yusuf Mayet'; protocol-devhelixcommunity.org
>> Cc: Henry Ping
>> Subject: RE: [Protocol-dev] OT: Question about FW
packet and NAT traversal
>>
>>
>> Poke-port code was added fairly recently (within
the
>> last year perhaps?) to the Helix code base, so it
>> is no surprise to me that it might not be in
>> the RealPlayer version that you tried, given that
>> RealPlayer tends to lag behind the latest Helix
release.
>>
>> As far as what type of NAT traversal techniques
>> are used, Henry added this code, I believe, and
>> he would know better how to answer. I'm copying
>> him on this reply.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> =============================================
>> Eric Hyche (ehychereal.com)
>> Technical Lead
>> RealNetworks, Inc.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: protocol-dev-bounceshelixcommunity.org
>>> [mailto:protocol-dev-bounceshelixcommunity.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Yusuf Mayet
>>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:33 AM
>>> To: protocol-devhelixcommunity.org
>>> Subject: [Protocol-dev] OT: Question about FW
packet and NAT traversal
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This might be OT.
>>>
>>> When looking at RTSP clients, especially on
cellphone handsets, I
>>> noticed that Pvplayer, when behind a NAT/FW,
sends a "FW packet" to
>>> the server, to poke a hole through the NAT, so
the UDP port mappings
>>> agreed in the SDP are opened. However,
RealPlayer (not sure of
>>> version number) does not send this, and can
lead to dead sessions.
>>> So my question is rather: when type of NAT
traversal techniques are
>>> currently implemented, or planned to be
implemented in clients, such
>>> as STUN or RTSP-over-TCP, etc?
>>>
>>> I'm looking for discussion and ideas.
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-
rtsp-nat-eva
>>> luation-00.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Yusuf
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Protocol-dev mailing list
>>> Protocol-devhelixcommunity.org
>>> http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/pr
otocol-dev
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Protocol-dev mailing list
> Protocol-devhelixcommunity.org
> http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/pr
otocol-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Protocol-dev mailing list
Protocol-devhelixcommunity.org
http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/pr
otocol-dev
|
