If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Kay--WindowsXP Messenger Support for non-UPnP Routers
Jonathan,
With regard to your statement about support for non-UPnP routers being far better in MSN Messenger than WindowsXP Messenger, I found this old post by John Holmes... ---------------------------- John Holmes [MSFT] Jun 11 2003, 2:12 pm Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger From: "John Holmes [MSFT]" - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:11:48 -0700 Local: Wed, Jun 11 2003 2:11 pm Subject: Messenger questions for John Holmes. NATs present quite a bit of trouble in establishing a peer to peer connection. If the NAT is not UPnP capable, I use a protocol that looks a good bit like STUN to traverse the NAT. This allows us to get it right most of the time. What makes matters worse though is that the user can't do anything about it by manually opening ports. This is for a number of reasons: first, we don't actually control the SIP signaling that sets up the a/v call. Inside these SIP packets is embedded your IP address and port that will be used for media. But until recently (our v6) we haven't had the ability to specify an external (public) IP and port to use for the call. Now in v6, we do have that ability and are traversing many more devices than we used to. I'm glad to hear that it's working better for you than previous versions. [snip].. John Holmes Developer, MSN Messenger ------------------------------ Apparently MSN Messenger has incorporated this STUN-like protocol and is successful in transversing non-UPnP routers. For those of us who prefer to use WindowsXP Messenger and must work with non-UPnP routers, can we look forward to this support being included in a future version of WindowsXP Messenger? I am currently using Version 5.1.0680. Thanks, R Edmonds ------------------------ [Snip]... Hi, You'll see this because MSN Messenger has far better support for non-UPnP routers and it's still using a protocol which is compatible with Windows Messenger so it works. If you send out an invitation with Windows Messenger and don't have a UPnP router, it simply will not work period. ____________________________________________ Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger Associate Expert |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Greetings,
As far as I know, there are no plans to add this into Windows Messenger. ____________________________________________ Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger Associate Expert http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/ Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2005 Jonathan Kay. You *must* contact me for redistribution rights. "Robert Edmonds" wrote in message ... Jonathan, With regard to your statement about support for non-UPnP routers being far better in MSN Messenger than WindowsXP Messenger, I found this old post by John Holmes... ---------------------------- John Holmes [MSFT] Jun 11 2003, 2:12 pm Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger From: "John Holmes [MSFT]" - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:11:48 -0700 Local: Wed, Jun 11 2003 2:11 pm Subject: Messenger questions for John Holmes. NATs present quite a bit of trouble in establishing a peer to peer connection. If the NAT is not UPnP capable, I use a protocol that looks a good bit like STUN to traverse the NAT. This allows us to get it right most of the time. What makes matters worse though is that the user can't do anything about it by manually opening ports. This is for a number of reasons: first, we don't actually control the SIP signaling that sets up the a/v call. Inside these SIP packets is embedded your IP address and port that will be used for media. But until recently (our v6) we haven't had the ability to specify an external (public) IP and port to use for the call. Now in v6, we do have that ability and are traversing many more devices than we used to. I'm glad to hear that it's working better for you than previous versions. [snip].. John Holmes Developer, MSN Messenger ------------------------------ Apparently MSN Messenger has incorporated this STUN-like protocol and is successful in transversing non-UPnP routers. For those of us who prefer to use WindowsXP Messenger and must work with non-UPnP routers, can we look forward to this support being included in a future version of WindowsXP Messenger? I am currently using Version 5.1.0680. Thanks, R Edmonds ------------------------ [Snip]... Hi, You'll see this because MSN Messenger has far better support for non-UPnP routers and it's still using a protocol which is compatible with Windows Messenger so it works. If you send out an invitation with Windows Messenger and don't have a UPnP router, it simply will not work period. ____________________________________________ Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger Associate Expert |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
hello i have a problem ms messenger is jamming up my system how do i free it
tried unistal . system restore only goes to today that is jammed also any actoin i can take to overcome this problem? help help. "Robert Edmonds" wrote: Jonathan, With regard to your statement about support for non-UPnP routers being far better in MSN Messenger than WindowsXP Messenger, I found this old post by John Holmes... ---------------------------- John Holmes [MSFT] Jun 11 2003, 2:12 pm Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger From: "John Holmes [MSFT]" - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:11:48 -0700 Local: Wed, Jun 11 2003 2:11 pm Subject: Messenger questions for John Holmes. NATs present quite a bit of trouble in establishing a peer to peer connection. If the NAT is not UPnP capable, I use a protocol that looks a good bit like STUN to traverse the NAT. This allows us to get it right most of the time. What makes matters worse though is that the user can't do anything about it by manually opening ports. This is for a number of reasons: first, we don't actually control the SIP signaling that sets up the a/v call. Inside these SIP packets is embedded your IP address and port that will be used for media. But until recently (our v6) we haven't had the ability to specify an external (public) IP and port to use for the call. Now in v6, we do have that ability and are traversing many more devices than we used to. I'm glad to hear that it's working better for you than previous versions. [snip].. John Holmes Developer, MSN Messenger ------------------------------ Apparently MSN Messenger has incorporated this STUN-like protocol and is successful in transversing non-UPnP routers. For those of us who prefer to use WindowsXP Messenger and must work with non-UPnP routers, can we look forward to this support being included in a future version of WindowsXP Messenger? I am currently using Version 5.1.0680. Thanks, R Edmonds ------------------------ [Snip]... Hi, You'll see this because MSN Messenger has far better support for non-UPnP routers and it's still using a protocol which is compatible with Windows Messenger so it works. If you send out an invitation with Windows Messenger and don't have a UPnP router, it simply will not work period. ____________________________________________ Jonathan Kay Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger Associate Expert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jonathan Kay, can you please assist | Richard Urban | Microsoft Messenger | 17 | March 22nd 05 02:08 PM |
Transferring files | Nigel Moore | Microsoft Messenger | 9 | March 20th 05 09:12 PM |
Windows Messenger & SP2 | Jared Burford | Windows Service Pack 2 | 9 | February 16th 05 11:06 PM |
Windows Messenger | Connie | Microsoft Messenger | 10 | July 26th 04 11:05 PM |
Windows Messenger | Connie | Microsoft Messenger | 6 | July 18th 04 03:04 PM |