| Author |
Message |
Suz
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:48 am Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
Nat Stott wrote:
| Quote: | "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
video conferencing to help a bit.
So, two questions:
1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
enough? The hotels will be
http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
Any personal experience gratefully received
Suzanne
Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality and
frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video image is
usually selectable.
One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
router.
|
I've never tries it with Messenger because video capabilities on that
are fairly recent and I've never bothered.
MS Netmeeting will certanly work over a NAT connection with video I use
that all time and have for years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nat Stott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:04 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
"Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality and
frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video image is
usually selectable.
One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
router. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Bradley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "Nat Stott"
<news@nospamatmyteaparty.f9.co.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: | One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
router.
I suppose a port would have to be opened; anyone know which one[s]? |
David Bradley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlusNet Support Team
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:
Hi Suzanne,
A cheap cam should work fine, and you should be able to get a picture
through, although I don't know what quality to expect.
What I'd recommend is before your husband leaves is have him connect up
via a 56k modem and test it out. You'll then be able to see what the worst
case quality would be, as the hotel's connections would be quicker than
56k.
With Regards,
Dave,
--
| Dave Tomlinson Broadband Solutions For
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
+ ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet ----- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owain
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:53 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
"Suz" wrote
| My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
| home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had
| the bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
| So, two questions:
| 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
| http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
| 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
| 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
| http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
| http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/
| Their claims may be unreliable.
The hotels' broadband connection will almost certainly be 'broad' enough
especially if you are using dial-up at home, or setting your
videoconferencing software to use a low speed even though you're both using
broadband. However some forms of videoconferencing and instant messaging may
be blocked by the hotel's firewalls or proxy servers.
What might work well as an alternative is emailing short video clips back
and forth. That also avoids the need for your husband to commit to ebing at
the computer at a certain time, which might be difficult depending on his
work arrangements.
Owain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wood
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
In message <417a1eab$0$3267$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Nat
Stott <news@nospamatmyteaparty.f9.co.invalid> writes
| Quote: | "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
video conferencing to help a bit.
So, two questions:
1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
enough? The hotels will be
http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality and
frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video image is
usually selectable.
One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
router.
|
I've just been experimenting with MSN Messenger and NAT on a pair of
Windows XP SP2 machines. I have a good system for experimentation at the
moment, as I have a (soon to be ceased) ntl: cable connection as well as
a routed IP block ADSL connection here.
For testing, I set up the Windows XP SP2 firewall on a laptop and
directly connected it to the ntl: cable modem - this is therefore a
no-NAT end.
My main PC has remained on the ADSL setup, which has uPnP on, and is
running multi-NAT on the router, with this machine having a dedicated
public IP address. The dedicated public IP address (in ZyXEL
terminology, a 1-1 mapping) gets round problems with incoming port
mapping - the router knows all incoming traffic on that IP address is,
so long as it passes the filters and firewall, for the LAN IP address
mapped to that public IP address.
uPnP is needed to allow MSN Messenger to open ports in the firewall for
incoming traffic.
It seems that MSN video isn't a problem if uPnP is available and the
router allows uPnP to open ports in the firewall. Video uses TCP, and
MSN Messenger 6.2.0137 (which is certainly a recent version if not the
latest) correctly drives uPnP to control the firewall. The webcam works
from either end (I only have one webcam so I can't try both ends sending
video at once - though I don't foresee a problem with bidirectional
video.).
MSN audio is a problem, though - it uses UDP. Whilst uPnP appears
capable of opening UDP ports in the firewall, it seems that this isn't
done correctly by the version of MSN Messenger I tried.
Audio works by the inviting party sending an invite to the remote party
to connect to a particular UDP port - a bit like MSN Messenger file
sending does, actually (though that uses TCP, not UDP).
With audio, if my no-NAT end invites, all works correctly (like most
people, I don't have much firewalling LAN to WAN on my router). If the
NAT end invites, the only way I can make things work properly is open
the 'high' UDP ports on the firewall for WAN to LAN traffic.
In this case, I opened 1030 to 65535, less a few well known ports -
namely 1900 which is SSDP (part of uPnP), 1433-1434 which is MS-SQL
(this machine runs MSDE 2000 because it is a Backup Exec 9.1 media
server - Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer confirms that SQL is
patched up to date) and 2049 which is sometimes used for NFS.
Checking back through my firewall logs, I wasn't seeing any significant
incoming UDP traffic on any other port. Most (but not all) unwanted
traffic uses ports below 1024 and/or TCP. However, if anyone can think
of any more UDP ports in the range I've opened that are a good idea to
add to my firewall rules, I'm listening. For now, as I've finished
experimenting, I've disabled the firewall rule that opens the ports.
It's only about three clicks in the router's web pages to turn it back
on.
You'll note I excluded the bottom few 'high' ports from the range - UDP
1024 to 1029 carry quite a lot of 'noise' according to my firewall
logging - probably Messenger spam attempts in the main (this Messenger
is the Messenger service in Windows that throws up those pop-up windows
- not Windows or MSN Messenger).
On my setup, opening the high UDP ports in the firewall was enough to
get MSN Messenger audio working because the machine has a dedicated
public IP address, so the multi-NAT on the router knows to send all
incoming packets on the public IP address to the corresponding private
IP address.
If I was using many to one NAT on that IP address (as you would if you
had a single IP Internet account), I'd have to use port forwarding or
even the crude "DMZ" feature on some routers (which forward all
otherwise unowned incoming traffic to a certain LAN IP address) to steer
the traffic to the right place.
As you can see, particularly to get audio working behind NAT, you need
the ability to configure the router yourself.
It's also worth noting that my setup is using a higher end router than
most people here - the main router is a ZyXEL ZyWALL 35, which has a
no-NAT ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1 on its WAN 1 port connected to my ADSL
line. It's possible other routers may not get uPnP correct if they are
running multi-NAT.
Someone else mentioned that Netmeeting will work through NAT. That's
only the case if the NAT router has a H.323 ALG. Even then, for inward
connections to work, you often need to open a port or two on the
firewall and, if necessary, make an appropriate entry in your port
forwarding setup (from memory the ports are 1503 and 1720 - both TCP).
David
--
David Wood
david@wood2.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wood
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:23 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
In message <L2tdcxHIskeBFA9O@wood2.org.uk>, David Wood
<david@wood2.org.uk> writes
| Quote: | It's also worth noting that my setup is using a higher end router than
most people here - the main router is a ZyXEL ZyWALL 35, which has a
no-NAT ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1 on its WAN 1 port connected to my ADSL
line. It's possible other routers may not get uPnP correct if they are
running multi-NAT.
|
For what it's worth, I probably should document the firmware versions
and the like in use.
The ADSL router is a ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1, running firmware version
V3.40(OL.1). This router has NAT and its firewall off.
The ADSL router is on the WAN 1 port of the main router - a ZyXEL ZyWALL
35, running firmware version 3.62(WZ.3).
The ADSL account is a Zen Home 1000 with a /29 IP block (8 IP
addresses).
The ntl: account used on the laptop is an ntl: 750/128 cable modem
connection, with one dynamic (DHCP) IP address.
Both computer run Windows XP Professional SP2 and MSN Messenger
6.2.0137. Downloading the latest version of MSN Messenger from
<http://messenger.msn.co.uk> and comparing the timestamps of the digital
signature on the file (1 June 2004) indicates that there's no newer
version available at this time.
David
--
David Wood
david@wood2.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
Nat Stott wrote:
| Quote: | "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the
bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
So, two questions:
1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
'broad' enough? The hotels will be
http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
Any personal experience gratefully received
Suzanne
Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality
and frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video
image is usually selectable.
One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT
router between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of
connection will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video
from behind a NAT router.
|
My router at home does NAT and video calls on MSN work just fine
--
Alex
"We are now up against live, hostile targets"
"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moonshine
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:53 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:49:26 +0100, PlusNet Support Team
<dtomlinson@plus.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:
My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
video conferencing to help a bit.
So, two questions:
1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
enough? The hotels will be
http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
Any personal experience gratefully received
Suzanne
Hi Suzanne,
A cheap cam should work fine, and you should be able to get a picture
through, although I don't know what quality to expect.
What I'd recommend is before your husband leaves is have him connect up
via a 56k modem and test it out. You'll then be able to see what the worst
case quality would be, as the hotel's connections would be quicker than
56k.
With Regards,
Dave,
|
Set the remote PC up with realtunnel http://www.paradial.com/index.asp
and you will get through any non-uPnP NAT router with Messenger Voice
& Video. I've done this myself and it worked fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:51 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
news:61yhsWJ00keBFA7e@wood2.org.uk...
| Quote: | In message <L2tdcxHIskeBFA9O@wood2.org.uk>, David Wood
david@wood2.org.uk> writes
It's also worth noting that my setup is using a higher end router than
most people here - the main router is a ZyXEL ZyWALL 35, which has a
no-NAT ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1 on its WAN 1 port connected to my ADSL line.
It's possible other routers may not get uPnP correct if they are running
multi-NAT.
For what it's worth, I probably should document the firmware versions and
the like in use.
The ADSL router is a ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1, running firmware version
V3.40(OL.1). This router has NAT and its firewall off.
The ADSL router is on the WAN 1 port of the main router - a ZyXEL ZyWALL
35, running firmware version 3.62(WZ.3).
The ADSL account is a Zen Home 1000 with a /29 IP block (8 IP addresses).
The ntl: account used on the laptop is an ntl: 750/128 cable modem
connection, with one dynamic (DHCP) IP address.
Both computer run Windows XP Professional SP2 and MSN Messenger 6.2.0137.
Downloading the latest version of MSN Messenger from
http://messenger.msn.co.uk> and comparing the timestamps of the digital
signature on the file (1 June 2004) indicates that there's no newer
version available at this time.
|
Was any of this an answer to my original question? Do remember we cannot
configure anything belonging to the hotel.
S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:00 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
"Owain" <owain41276@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1098535245.31839.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
| Quote: | "Suz" wrote
| My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
| home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had
| the bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
| So, two questions:
| 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
| http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
| 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
| 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
| http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
| http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/
| Their claims may be unreliable.
The hotels' broadband connection will almost certainly be 'broad' enough
especially if you are using dial-up at home,
|
Owain Owain. Dial-up indeed. We have 1.5Mbps. :o)
or setting your
| Quote: | videoconferencing software to use a low speed even though you're both
using
broadband. However some forms of videoconferencing and instant messaging
may
be blocked by the hotel's firewalls or proxy servers.
|
This is the bit that will be the killer and we can't test it until it's too
late.
| Quote: | What might work well as an alternative is emailing short video clips back
and forth.
|
I can hack not seeing his lovely mug for 5 days but the weans are only 5, 4
and 1 and I doubt they'd be impressed with anything other than 'live' chat.
| Quote: | That also avoids the need for your husband to commit to ebing at
the computer at a certain time, which might be difficult depending on his
work arrangements.
|
This'll only be in the evenings, say 5:30 to 8:00 (bedtime)
| Quote: | Owain
Cheers for all the thoughts, |
Suzanne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wood
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
In message <417a7df9$0$11200$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Suz
<clear@off.com> writes
| Quote: | "David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
news:61yhsWJ00keBFA7e@wood2.org.uk...
For what it's worth, I probably should document the firmware versions and
the like in use.
Was any of this an answer to my original question? Do remember we cannot
configure anything belonging to the hotel.
|
That was adding information on the test setup that I left out of the
post I followed up which gave a comprehensive set of observations on how
MSN Messenger works for video and audio when NAT is in use in my
previous post. Some of the behaviour is possibly router dependent.
In summary, if you use MSN Messenger there's very little chance of audio
getting through a NAT router (assuming that's what the hotel uses) -
though video will probably make it if they're offering uPnP (and the
computer used is set up to use uPnP). No uPnP and NAT means no audio or
video, most likely.
Tunneling of some sort would potentially provide a solution. Another
post has mentioned one possible solution there that's NAT friendly (a
lot of VPN setups are NAT hostile).
David
--
David Wood
david@wood2.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter M
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:14 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
On 23 Oct 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Dial-up indeed. We have 1.5Mbps. :o)
|
and to test from his laptop to your 1.5 Mbps link, so you know that
the settings on both ends are correct, before going off to the hotel
(ie test the method, despite not having two fast links - FWIW, I have
1x 500 and 1x 1000 so a similar upper limit as yours, but can test the
theory behind linking 'A' to 'B' properly as they're on different ISPs)
PS If someone is using clear@off.com then your use is 'ab'use !
--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean McConkey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:20 pm Post subject:
Re: video link from hotel to home |
|
|
In article <417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, clear@off.com
says...
There will certainly be enough bandwidth from the hotel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in