«

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:04:49 +0000, Linker3000
<> wrote:


>For what it's worth, I got a Gigaset in for evaluation and had it up and
>running with voip.co.uk within about 10 mins.

For what it's worth my UTstarcom refused to connect with voip.co.uk
when I first bought it but would connect with others I gave up in the
end and just left it on the desk picked up again 30 minutes later and
all was working. Chris at ukvoip told me the other day that sometimes
their systems need a little time to think about things ))) .

> Chris at ukvoip told me the other day that sometimes
> their systems need a little time to think about things ))) .

Is that voip.co.uk? If so, then it may be some consolation. I really feel
that since the system is finding the server, it must be the other end that's
causing the problem.

Roger wrote:
> I really struggled with a Netgear router and my sipuras with one way
> voice and no connections and had to forward ports - something I never
> have to worry about with the Linksys router. Have you tried configuring
> STUN just to see if that helps the issue?


You don't have to forward ports on voip.co.uk.

Using stun with voip.co.uk is definitely going to cause you problems.

Tim

Matt wrote:
> I don't think there is anything in the router's configuration about SIP. I
> don't understand what ALG is.

ALG - application layer gateway. Software in the the router that is
meant to help SIP work through the NAT.

In practice, most SIP ALG's are fundamentally broken and do more bad
than good.

Tim

Just to let everyone know that this problem is now fixed, thanks to the
people at voip.co.uk. The reason was because our local LAN uses IP
addresses in the range 192.1.1.x and these aren't private addresses
apparently.

It's a historic thing and one that's difficult for me to change. So, I've
set the phone to use a its default static address of 192.168.2.2 and
adjusted to router to use 255.0.0.0 as the network mask, to allow it to
route everthing on the network.

Thanks for all your help - it's much appreciated.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:37:17 -0000, "Matt"
<> wrote:

>> Chris at ukvoip told me the other day that sometimes
>> their systems need a little time to think about things ))) .
>
>Is that voip.co.uk? If so, then it may be some consolation. I really feel
>that since the system is finding the server, it must be the other end that's
>causing the problem.
>
Pleased you have now got it sorted Matt .

"Tim" <> wrote in message
news:45eb0b40$0$764$...
> Roger wrote:
>> I really struggled with a Netgear router and my sipuras with one way
>> voice and no connections and had to forward ports - something I never
>> have to worry about with the Linksys router. Have you tried configuring
>> STUN just to see if that helps the issue?
>
>
> You don't have to forward ports on voip.co.uk.
>
> Using stun with voip.co.uk is definitely going to cause you problems.
>
> Tim
sorry but its been working fine here for over 6 moths with STUN

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:19:50 GMT, "Roger" <>
wrote:


>sorry but its been working fine here for over 6 moths with STUN
And it has been working fine here for over 12 months now without
STUN .

<> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:19:50 GMT, "Roger" <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>sorry but its been working fine here for over 6 moths with STUN
> And it has been working fine here for over 12 months now without
> STUN .
you've missed the point - the comment that was made was that STUN was sure
to cause problems with voip.co.uk.

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:25:47 GMT, "Roger" <>
wrote:

>
><> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:19:50 GMT, "Roger" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>sorry but its been working fine here for over 6 moths with STUN
>> And it has been working fine here for over 12 months now without
>> STUN .
>you've missed the point - the comment that was made was that STUN was sure
>to cause problems with voip.co.uk.
And I was told by voip.co.uk that using stun CAN cause problems with
their service .