> Over at the IEEE 802, we are voting ballots on wording that can be > interpreted on way with the Webster dictionary and another with the > Oxford dictionary. > > So I am right about iptables controlling routing and you are right about > iptables NOT controlling routing, only influencing it. What does > 'control' mean in this context? IEEE is really big on state machines and > truly covers the transfer of 'control' from one layer to another. Look > at the MLME in 802.11. Look at the 802.1X machines. So since I have to > live this control architecture and work in live debates about what layer > is controling what, I have a particular language set. > Kernel routing code makes decision, iptables can influence that decision. :P > > BTW, should we table this debate? Webster says that means stopping, > 'taking the subject off the table.' Oxford says that means to start, > 'placing the subject on the table.' Boy did we have some moments back in > the mid-90s with the ISO crowd descended on the IETF. Also can we reach > a concensus here? Webster will accept a majority, Oxford wants complete > agreement. (Or at least that is what these sources said back in the > mid-90s when we lived Bernard Shaw's line of: 'Two nations separated by > a common language') > ^O^ > > :) > > Now I have to hop over to the Asterisk list to figure why with one > firewall the INVITE properly redirects the RTP to the RTP server, and > the with the other firewall this is not in the INVITE so the RTP flow > does not..... ARGH!!!!! > I hope you are not trying to get around a double nat situation. client -> nat <-> nat <- asterisk. I never managed to get things to work in that scenario. I have a vpn setup to get things to work.