Radvision

[bdldunworthy]

:laugh: Hello


Apparently radvision has new firewall traversal equipment that hasnt been released yet. Has anyone heard about this.. or can atleast comment on their experience with their products or service?


ciao
BDL

[Sean Lessman]

:laugh: Hello


Apparently radvision has new firewall traversal equipment that hasnt been released yet. Has anyone heard about this.. or can atleast comment on their experience with their products or service?


ciao
BDL

I believe this is the product they acquired through VisionNex awhile back.

Sean

[bdldunworthy]

Hey Sean,

I would like to stick with tandberg for all of our video conferencing needs. Does tandberg have or are they going to have a similar product?

thanks
Robert

[Joe Martino]

Robert
Tandberg has a firewall traversal called expressway..http://www.tandbergusa.com/products/tandberg_expressway.jsp

Joe

[bdldunworthy]

Thx

I am familiar with expressway but it wont work in this situation. I was hoping for some hints on tandberg equipment in development or something. If this technology is what radvision says it is.. i cant see tandberg giving up their market lead to them..

ttyl
Robert

[Joe Martino]

what does it do that Tandberg doesnt? (just curious)

[bdldunworthy]

Tandberg requires that one of their gatekeepers are at the other end. I am in a situation where only our end has tandbergs... the other is polycom.

ttyl

[trapehzoid]

Tandberg requires that one of their gatekeepers are at the other end. I am in a situation where only our end has tandbergs... the other is polycom.

ttyl

No it doesn't.. I think I saw your post on wainhouse.. you aren't following the solution. Your issue is you don't have a gatekeeper nor do you have a H.460.xx endpoint.

The radvision product uses a software client that you need. I don't think its any different for the far-end.. you need a gatekeeper connection.

[bdldunworthy]

Hey Trapezoid,

Nono the MXP's i have support H.460. After i read your post I took a look at a few articles about H.460.xx. I hadn't realized that the new standard required client software behind the firewall for both sides. The other site we are trying to connect with has some older polycom stuff and I was trying to fix up our side to compensate for them not having a gatekeeper.

thx

Robert

[trapped]

Robert

You can find information about PathFinder on our website, http://www.radvision.com/EnterpriseSolutions/VideoconferencingProducts/PathFinder/. The whitepaper that is available is pretty detailed..

Let me know if you have any questions.

Mike

[bdldunworthy]

Hey Mike,

You work for radvision right?

This is a great product and looks like it will solve our problem. All the other site will need is an install CD :)

Oh btw... can the client install cd be handed out like acrobat reader or is there a cd key associated with each install that costs money?

Thanks for your help Mike

Robert

[trapped]

Yes, I do work for RADVISION.

Right, all you need to do on the far end is install a small client on any Windows PC. You can have multiple endpoints connect back through the client to the main network location to access other endpoints, MCUs or gateways. If you need any further information feel free to send me an e-mail, mtrapp@radvision.com.

Mike

[trapehzoid]

Hey Trapezoid,

Nono the MXP's i have support H.460.

All MXPs support expressway... which works with the border controller.

After i read your post I took a look at a few articles about H.460.xx. I hadn't realized that the new standard required client software behind the firewall for both sides.

Not really.. you need something on both sides of the firewall you are traversing. The 'client' is built into your MXPs. Its also built into the gatekeeper to support devices that don't have 'the client'.

Once you've cross the firewall.. the otherside just needs to be able to dial your aliases.. it can be a completely public system. The 'client-server' relationship is only when crossing a firewall..

The other site we are trying to connect with has some older polycom stuff and I was trying to fix up our side to compensate for them not having a gatekeeper.

If they are publically reachable.. just dial them OUT through your border controller. You can dial them by IP address.

we have been piloting the border controller and it works great in this regard.

[bdldunworthy]

Hey Trapehzoid,

I would dial out with the border controller but the other school is telling me they can't accept incoming calls unless they were to open ports in their firewall. As far as I can tell this pathfinder is one of the few solutions we have and probably the best one.


Robert

[trapehzoid]

Hey Trapehzoid,

I would dial out with the border controller but the other school is telling me they can't accept incoming calls unless they were to open ports in their firewall. As far as I can tell this pathfinder is one of the few solutions we have and probably the best one.


Robert

Well sounds like they painted themselves in a corner now didn't they? :)

pathfinder isn't going to solve this any different for you.. either way you are going to have to let them use your traversal server to get out of their network. Oh BTW, they'll go through your device for all calls too unless they change the configuration back and forth.

Both situations are the same.. you are trying to get through the crappy firewall setup they have. With your border controller they need a client.. but they don't have a endpoint that can do it.. nor do they have a gatekeeper that can do it.. nor do they have a gatekeeper to neighbor with so they can dial you. You see.. this continuly gets back to them not having a gatekeeper. If they had one.. problem solved. You could also solve this problem by both peering to someone else's gatekeeper.. like a public dial plan used by internet2

The pathnavigator just helps you by giving them a 'free' client. I looked briefly at the pathnavigator solution before talking to our rep and it appears to be old technology with different concepts then the new standardized H.460 stuff. Sounds like a dead-end solution to me.

[Sean Lessman]

...appears to be old technology with different concepts then the new standardized H.460 stuff. Sounds like a dead-end solution to me.

The Pathnavigator is very similar to the way Ridgeway did their product. Some of the more notable differences is Pathnavigator uses port 80 (single port) to tunnel everything through the firewall. This will not work if you have an application proxy that is preventing non-HTML traffic on port 80. People are paying a lot more attention to port 80 traffic since it has been used heavily for virus infections lately.

H.460.18/19 is a better method because the functionality is now part of H.323 and works with call setup etc. Its not just a tunnel through the firewall.

Nothing says RAD couldn't upgrade the Pathnavigator to H.460.18/19, and hopefully they will.

Sean

[vadirajj]

Hi

Has anyone deployed the Pathfinder solution. Do I need a Client on both the sides if the remote end is reachable directly on internet and the Traversal is only required on my side ?

Raju

[jo3baltes]

Hi,

In most cases, there is no PathFinder Client deployed in the central location. If the remote sites support H.460, there's no need for the PathFinder client at all.

If your site is the central location, you can install the PathFinder server in your DMZ or outside on the Public Internet and deploy a client on the inside of the firewall (keeping in mind that a Gatekeeper of some sort is needed in the same firewall segment as PathFinder server... ). This will get your inside stations to traverse your firewall going out, assuming all the remote sites can take care of their own firewalls.

Another scenario would be to install the PathFinder server in the private LAN fully behind the firewall and follow that process.

Hope that helps. Feel free to email at jbaltes AT radvision.com also.