Bb

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz wrote:
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.

There have been several answers to your questions, though you might not
realize they were in english. ;)

The point is that firewalls or routers are very common with broadband
connections. You may have one in your house. These typically allow you to
make outgoing connections, but not incoming connections.

These firewalls also typically allow a lot of systems to share one network
address, through a function called "NAT". It would be hard to imagine a
hotel with broadband not having a NAT, since they obviously could have a
lot of systems (and internet addresses usually cost money). So you can
assume his will.

If you can have YOUR system not behind a NAT, that will greatly increase
the chance that a call can at least be made in one direction. Voice &
video can be a little deceiving, because sometimes when you call another
system, the actual connection actually occurs in the other direction (from
the other system to you). So if he can't call you, try calling him.

Alternately, there is also software that's supposed to make MSN messsenger
work behind a NAT (http://www.easyfp.com/msn-messenger-directtalk/). It
might be worthwhile to just get it and use it; its not particularly
expensive and although they don't explain how it works, I suspect they use
a common method that works with almost all NATs (also used by Skype for
internet phone).

--
-BB-
CCIE #1499
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

abuse

In article <[email protected]>,
Nat Stott <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >> Any personal experience gratefully received

Of the hotel I can say that the Runnymede is very nice but horrendously
overpriced. You may want to check the price of their broadband link.

[...]
    >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
    >router.

If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.

For the technically minded, what it does is the rendezvous service (the
eyeballchat login server) instructs each client sends a UDP packet to the
other client (if non-RFC1918) or the other client's public address. This
sets up a temporary NAT forwarding rule for the UDP packets for a few
minutes for incoming UDP from the other client, and keeps it open as long
as UDP packets are still flowing. The clients then can send each other UDP
packets directly; the NAT router/firewall passes the incoming packets
onwards by virtue of the way UDP packets are routed over NAT. Voila -
voice & video can be exchanged directly. I'm not sure if the text
messaging is done the same way or via the central server.

Zane.

Miguel Cruz

[email protected]> wrote:
    > If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
    > technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
    > and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
    > audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.
    > For the technically minded, what it does is the rendezvous service (the
    > eyeballchat login server) instructs each client sends a UDP packet to the
    > other client (if non-RFC1918) or the other client's public address. This
    > sets up a temporary NAT forwarding rule for the UDP packets for a few
    > minutes for incoming UDP from the other client, and keeps it open as long
    > as UDP packets are still flowing. The clients then can send each other UDP
    > packets directly; the NAT router/firewall passes the incoming packets
    > onwards by virtue of the way UDP packets are routed over NAT. Voila -
    > voice & video can be exchanged directly. I'm not sure if the text
    > messaging is done the same way or via the central server.

Very clever. Thanks for the explanation. After the previous mention of
"ENAT" I had just googled for a how-it-works but came up empty.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

-=-Peas-=-

"David Bradley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "Nat Stott"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [snip]
    > >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    > >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    > >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a
NAT
    > >router.
    > >
    > I suppose a port would have to be opened; anyone know which one[s]?

That depends on what software you use, however i don't imagine that the
hotels reception desk has access to (or even understands) how to change the
firewall.

    > David Bradley

-=-peas-=-

-=-Peas-=-

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > I've never tries it with Messenger because video capabilities on that
    > are fairly recent and I've never bothered.
    > MS Netmeeting will certanly work over a NAT connection with video I use
    > that all time and have for years.

NAT can be configured in a number of different ways, however in most
deployments it does not allow direct connections to be established from the
external network unless specifically cofigured to do so. This means that
whilst you may be able to call out it is unlikely that you will get
returning media or be able to accept calls in, especially so on netmeeting
which is unmaintained software.

-=-peas-=-

-=-Peas-=-

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Nat Stott <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    > >>
    > >> Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Of the hotel I can say that the Runnymede is very nice but horrendously
    > overpriced. You may want to check the price of their broadband link.
    > [...]
    > >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    > >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    > >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a
NAT
    > >router.
    > If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
    > technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
    > and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
    > audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.
    > For the technically minded, what it does is the rendezvous service (the
    > eyeballchat login server) instructs each client sends a UDP packet to the
    > other client (if non-RFC1918) or the other client's public address. This
    > sets up a temporary NAT forwarding rule for the UDP packets for a few
    > minutes for incoming UDP from the other client, and keeps it open as long
    > as UDP packets are still flowing. The clients then can send each other UDP
    > packets directly; the NAT router/firewall passes the incoming packets
    > onwards by virtue of the way UDP packets are routed over NAT. Voila -
    > voice & video can be exchanged directly. I'm not sure if the text
    > messaging is done the same way or via the central server.

Sounds like a bi-directional udp path, this is imho the future of rich media
bypassing evil nat boxes, i've seen proxy products that use this kind of
technique.

I think the answer to the original threads question is to use a VPN client
if possible to tunnel through the firewall. Skype will provide this answer
in the future when they add video.

-=-peas-=-
    > Zane.

-=-Peas-=-

"PlusNet Support Team" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home
at
    > > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > > So, two questions:
    > > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > > enough? The hotels will be
    > > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    > >
    > > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > > Suzanne
    > >
    > >
    > Hi Suzanne,
    > A cheap cam should work fine, and you should be able to get a picture
    > through, although I don't know what quality to expect.
    > What I'd recommend is before your husband leaves is have him connect up
    > via a 56k modem and test it out. You'll then be able to see what the worst
    > case quality would be, as the hotel's connections would be quicker than
    > 56k.

This is a frankly stupid suggestion. Modems tend to get assigned live,
public ip addreses that are non-nat in nature and not firewalled. The hotel
will definately give you private nated and firewalled connectivity therefore
the test and the suggestion is irrelevant.

A 'cheap cam' can do the job if the poster gets the sw right to overcome the
fw problem

    > With Regards,
    > Dave,

posting yor .sig was a mistake imho

-=-peas-=-

-=-Peas-=-

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz wrote:
    > > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home
at
    > > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > There have been several answers to your questions, though you might not
    > realize they were in english. ;)
    > The point is that firewalls or routers are very common with broadband
    > connections. You may have one in your house. These typically allow you to
    > make outgoing connections, but not incoming connections.
    > These firewalls also typically allow a lot of systems to share one network
    > address, through a function called "NAT". It would be hard to imagine a
    > hotel with broadband not having a NAT, since they obviously could have a
    > lot of systems (and internet addresses usually cost money). So you can
    > assume his will.
    > If you can have YOUR system not behind a NAT, that will greatly increase
    > the chance that a call can at least be made in one direction. Voice &
    > video can be a little deceiving, because sometimes when you call another
    > system, the actual connection actually occurs in the other direction (from
    > the other system to you). So if he can't call you, try calling him.
    > Alternately, there is also software that's supposed to make MSN messsenger
    > work behind a NAT (http://www.easyfp.com/msn-messenger-directtalk/). It
    > might be worthwhile to just get it and use it; its not particularly
    > expensive and although they don't explain how it works, I suspect they use
    > a common method that works with almost all NATs (also used by Skype for
    > internet phone).

Great post BB. In answer to your question i believe the simply proxy the MSN
connection, i guess their 'network driver' polls the proxy peridionally to
see if there are any calls waiting, if so then a bi-directional channel can
bypass the incoming connection normally required. I;d imagine they multiplex
all the ports required onto the one open channel.

The Q&A seems to confirm the existance of the server.

    > --
    > -BB-

-=-peas-=-

Linker3000

Suz wrote:
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > So, two questions:
    > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Suzanne
    >
    >
I tried this when working in Hartlepool/Leeds/Sheffield/Middlesbrough
back to my family in West Sussex (6 months in total)

Couldn't get it wotk work - as per other posts here it's issues with NAT
and uPNP.

Snaps from a camera phone may help or use Skype (www.skype.com) for
voice only - had better results with that.

Peter M

On 24 Oct 2004, "-=-peas-=-" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >A 'cheap cam' can do the job if the poster gets the sw right to
    >overcome the fw problem

So ensuring it works beforehand (eg using that 56k modem link) isn't
a 'frankly stupid suggestion', is it! I forgot, it needs commonsense
to appreciate the suggestion, doesn't it :-)

--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.

Bogus Address

    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.

Dunno about Runnymede, but there are plenty of places in Glasgow where
he could hook up his laptop via a public wireless link. Why does it
have to be the hotel?

========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.

Tx2

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected], a.k.a
David Wood says...

[...]

    > My main PC has remained on the ADSL setup, which has uPnP on ...

Isn't uPnP a security issue to have working under Windows XP?

The only way i can get audio to work under MSN Messenger, is to enable
the uPnP (and related) services, otherwise, it's video only in some
cases.

Weird, because i can't connect to my mate down the road with video *or*
audio, can connect to a guy in the next town with video only, but can
connect to my parents abroad with both.

Turning uPnP services on loses all the restrictions across the board, or
seems to.

The router (a Draytek 2600) has uPnP capabilities turned on. FWIW, i
also run software firewalls on my LAN machines, but until i understand
uPnP risks further, it's staying switched off.

Suz

"Sean McConkey" <snm(CUT-THIS)[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] t...
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > says...
    >> My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    >> the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    >> video conferencing to help a bit.
    >> So, two questions:
    >> 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >> http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >> 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    >> enough? The hotels will be
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >> Any personal experience gratefully received
    >> Suzanne
    > Use Yahoo messenger as it tends to work seamlessly with most firewalls.
    > There will certainly be enough bandwidth from the hotel.

What about the hotel NAT?

-=-Peas-=-

"Peter M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On 24 Oct 2004, "-=-peas-=-" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >A 'cheap cam' can do the job if the poster gets the sw right to
    > >overcome the fw problem
    > So ensuring it works beforehand (eg using that 56k modem link) isn't
    > a 'frankly stupid suggestion', is it! I forgot, it needs commonsense
    > to appreciate the suggestion, doesn't it :-)

What i'm saying is that a modem connection with little or no restrictions is
no comparision to a hotel connection with many. Perhaps the word 'stupid' is
emotive, but posting as a support rep of a company adds an air of authority
to your answer.

    > --
    > PlusNet

-=-peas-=-

Suz

    > Of the hotel I can say that the Runnymede is very nice but horrendously
    > overpriced. You may want to check the price of their broadband link.

£200 for a single room and £15 per day for a broadband link. But we're not
paying for it, his company will.

Good to hear the hotel is nice. Any tips on the area?