From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0158_01C5C605.AAB87A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Yes you care confused.  Nothing needs to be turned on in Windows XP =
to take advantage of an internet gatewate device.  You do need to enable =
it on the router.  It is the client applications that may use this or =
not.  Why you don't want dynamic ports to be opened on demand and would =
prefer static ports to be opened always I don't know.  The static =
configuration leaves ports open longer and at fixed locations.

Rich

  "Gary Britt"  wrote in message =
news:433d860d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Me confused? Impossible .  I saw once on my wife's XP box that XP =
will do
  uPnP with the router, assuming its turned on at the router and in XP.  =
I
  keep it turned off in both places because I didn't want her XP =
computer
  deciding what ports to open or close on the router.  Am I mistaking =
XP's
  abilities in this area?

  Gary

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:433c885d{at}w3.nls.net...
     7.5 I believe requires Windows XP.  I think 7.0 supported Windows =
2000
  but it doesn't support AV as well as 7.5.

     You only need UPnP if you want easy NAT traversal.  You can do =
without
  but it may require you to configure your network to get what UPnP =
would
  provide automatically.

     You appear to be confused over what UPnP features are provided by =
Windows
  XP.  My guess is that the feature to which you are referring is the =
user
  interface for network UPnP devices available in Windows XP.  This has
  nothing to do with whether your network devices support UPnP.  =
Applications
  like MSN Messenger can exploit UPnP regardless of whether you have the =
UPnP
  UI enabled.

  Rich

    "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
  news:433c2822$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    I've used MSN Messenger 7, 7.5 being able to do direct machine to =
machine
    sounds good.  Does it require XP and turning on XP's control of open =
ports
    on the router via uPnP to work machine to machine audio/video?  Or =
can it
  be
    manually configured as to ports to use and then manually set the =
router's
    port forwarding to the specific machines in question?  I don't run =
XP, my
    wife has it though, but it won't be on my end.  I refuse to turn on =
XP's
    uPnP control of open ports on the router also.

    Gary

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:433c1ce2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       NetMeeting is almost obsolete.  Current applications do much =
better in
    everything from NAT traversal to audio and video quality.  My =
suggestion
  for
    an adhoc conversation is to use MSN Messenger 7.5.  Audio and video =
are
    direct machine to machine.  If you have a major meeting I would =
suggest
    considering something meatier like LiveMeeting.

    Rich

      "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
    news:433bf0db{at}w3.nls.net...
      Recently Scott in our NY office and I tried a Net Meeting session
  between
      our two laptops, using a LinkSys USB2 camera.  We are connected =
via a
      private T-1 between the offices, with a Cisco 1720 router on each =
end,
  so
    we
      can use private IP addresses, and connect direct machine to =
machine.
  Our
      results were no better than using a pubic reflection server.  =
Audio was
      poor, video was jerky, audio was at many times out of sync.  This =
is
  with
      the built-in Net Meeting provided in XP-Pro.  There is no way I'd =
try or
      even suggest using that for a major meeting in a conference room.

      We configured both sides to be on a local corporate lan, but the =
speeds
      showing on the network usage were tiny.  There was no way we could
  figure
      out to make it anything other than the same as an ICQ Video Chat =
setup.

      --=20

      Glenn M.
      "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
      news:433b1f19$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      > Well I think you understand how well it works.  Not at all.  It =
comes
    from
      > a
      > design that was based upon wide open, no NAT, direct modem
  connections,
      > and
      > it was never fixed because MS wanted everyone to use MSN Chat =
instead.
      > You
      > can get some things to work like remote desktop viewing and if =
you're
      > lucky
      > video and audio from one place to the other, but not video and =
audio
  in
      > the
      > other direction simultaneously.  You can get text chat to work =
and
  maybe
      > some of the whiteboard stuff and file sending.  Its simultaneous
      > video/audio
      > from two or more sources that won't work ever unless you are =
wide open
    to
      > the net on both ends.
      >
      > Gary
      >
      > "Richard B."  wrote in message
      > news:lm2mj1tui247e3musjks1f5li6bd4jvqs7{at}4ax.com...
      >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:10:11 -0400, "Gary Britt"
      >>  wrote:
      >>
      >> >Netmeeting is near impossible to make work properly through =
routers
  at
      > each
      >> >end, unless you turn on uPnP in the router and let XP at both =
ends
      > control
      >> >what ports are open
      >>
      >> Most everything goes through a router at some point, how does =
it work
      >> at all? 
      >>
      >> Sounds like my firewall would block it several time over.
      >>
      >> - Richard
      >
      >




------=_NextPart_000_0158_01C5C605.AAB87A80
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Yes you care =
confused.  Nothing=20
needs to be turned on in Windows XP to take advantage of an internet = gatewate=20
device.  You do need to enable it on the router.  It is
the = client=20
applications that may use this or not.  Why you don't want dynamic
= ports to=20
be opened on demand and would prefer static ports to be opened always I = don't=20
know.  The static configuration leaves ports open longer and at = fixed=20
locations.
 
Rich
 

  "Gary Britt" <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:433d860d$1{at}w3.nls.net...Me=20
  confused? Impossible <g>.  I saw once on my wife's XP box =
that XP=20
  will douPnP with the router, assuming its turned on at the router =
and in=20
  XP.  Ikeep it turned off in both places because I didn't want =
her XP=20
  computerdeciding what ports to open or close on the router.  =
Am I=20
  mistaking XP'sabilities in this
area?Gary"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:433c885d{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  7.5 I believe requires Windows XP.  I think 7.0 supported Windows =

  2000but it doesn't support AV as well as
7.5.   =
You only=20
  need UPnP if you want easy NAT traversal.  You can do =
withoutbut it=20
  may require you to configure your network to get what UPnP =
wouldprovide=20
  automatically.   You appear to be
confused over what =
UPnP=20
  features are provided by WindowsXP.  My guess is that the =
feature to=20
  which you are referring is the userinterface for network UPnP =
devices=20
  available in Windows XP.  This hasnothing to do with whether =
your=20
  network devices support UPnP.  Applicationslike MSN Messenger =
can=20
  exploit UPnP regardless of whether you have the UPnPUI=20
  enabled.Rich  "Gary
Britt" <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>
=
wrote in=20
  messagenews:433c2822$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  I've used MSN Messenger 7, 7.5 being able to do direct machine to=20
  machine  sounds good.  Does it require XP and
turning on =
XP's=20
  control of open ports  on the router via uPnP to work machine =
to=20
  machine audio/video?  Or can itbe  manually =
configured as to=20
  ports to use and then manually set the router's  port =
forwarding to=20
  the specific machines in question?  I don't run XP,
my  =
wife has=20
  it though, but it won't be on my end.  I refuse to turn on =
XP's =20
  uPnP control of open ports on the router also. =20
  Gary  "Rich" <{at}>
wrote in message news:433c1ce2$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
    =20
  NetMeeting is almost obsolete.  Current applications do much =
better=20
  in  everything from NAT traversal to audio and video =
quality. =20
  My suggestionfor  an adhoc conversation is
to use MSN =
Messenger=20
  7.5.  Audio and video are  direct machine to =
machine.  If=20
  you have a major meeting I would suggest  considering =
something=20
  meatier like LiveMeeting. 
Rich    =
"Glenn=20
  Meadows" <gmeadow{at}comcast.net>=20">mailto:gmeadow{at}comcast.net">gmeadow{at}comcast.net>=20
  wrote in message  news:433bf0db{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;  =20
  Recently Scott in our NY office and I tried a Net Meeting=20
  sessionbetween    our two
laptops, using a =
LinkSys USB2=20
  camera.  We are connected via
a    private T-1 =
between=20
  the offices, with a Cisco 1720 router on each
end,so =20
  we    can use private IP addresses,
and connect =
direct=20
  machine to machine.Our   
results were no =
better than=20
  using a pubic reflection server.  Audio
was    =
poor,=20
  video was jerky, audio was at many times out of sync.  This=20
  iswith    the built-in Net
Meeting provided in=20
  XP-Pro.  There is no way I'd try
or    even =
suggest=20
  using that for a major meeting in a conference =
room.   =20
  We configured both sides to be on a local corporate lan, but the=20
  speeds    showing on the network usage were =
tiny. =20
  There was no way we
couldfigure    out to make =
it=20
  anything other than the same as an ICQ Video Chat=20
  setup.    --
    Glenn=20
  M.    "Gary Britt" <zotu{at}nospamforme.com>">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message    news:433b1f19$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
   =20
  > Well I think you understand how well it works.  Not at =
all.  It=20
  comes  from    > =
a    >=20
  design that was based upon wide open, no NAT, direct=20
  modemconnections,    > =
and   =20
  > it was never fixed because MS wanted everyone to use MSN Chat=20
  instead.    >
You    > can =
get=20
  some things to work like remote desktop viewing and if=20
  you're    >
lucky    > =
video and=20
  audio from one place to the other, but not video and=20
  audioin    >
the    > =
other=20
  direction simultaneously.  You can get text chat to work=20
  andmaybe    > some
of the whiteboard stuff =
and file=20
  sending.  Its
simultaneous    >=20
  video/audio    > from two or
more sources that =
won't=20
  work ever unless you are wide open 
to    =
> the=20
  net on both ends.   
>    =
>=20
  Gary   
>    > "Richard =
B." <TDNBW{at}barktopus.com>">mailto:TDNBW{at}barktopus.com">TDNBW{at}barktopus.com>
wrote =
in=20
  message    > news:lm2mj1tui24=
7e3musjks1f5li6bd4jvqs7{at}4ax.com...   =20
  >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:10:11 -0400, "Gary=20
  Britt"    >>
<zotu{at}nospamforme.com>=20">mailto:zotu{at}nospamforme.com">zotu{at}nospamforme.com>=20
  wrote:   
>>   
>>=20
  >Netmeeting is near impossible to make work properly through=20
  routersat    >
each    =
>>=20
  >end, unless you turn on uPnP in the router and let XP at both=20
  ends    >
control    >> =

  >what ports are open    =
>>   =20
  >> Most everything goes through a router at some point, how does =
it=20
  work    >> at all? =
<g>   =20
  >>    >>
Sounds like my firewall would =
block it=20
  several time over.    =
>>   =20
  >> - Richard   
>   =20
 
>

------=_NextPart_000_0158_01C5C605.AAB87A80--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5