Configuring FreeBSD Firewall for NetMeeting?

logictype asks: "How would you configure a FreeBSD NAT box so it will work with netmeeting or my webcam? Here is a page thatdescribes the ports needed. I am not familiar with FreeBSD so all help is appreciated."

netmeeting and masquerading

[malice95]

Unfortunatly there is no way to masquerade
netmeeting through a firewall unless you use
a proxy specifically designed for it on the masquerading box.

I know of one such proxy but its nots freeware.
I think its like 60 bucks to buy but it does work well. I forget the name right now though. If noone
post it by the time I get home I will post the
name and a web site for you to check it out.

Malice95

i don't know how your FreeBSD box is set up, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

We're running a FreeBSD box with SOCKS5 proxy server. Installed the most recent build of the sockscap32 client app, configured it, set up Netmeeting to run in it. Run Netmeeting "socksified" and it works like a charm. http://socks.nec.com (I think that's right) has everything you need to do it. Of course, you need to be able to configure the server, but that's a given if you're asking this question. good luck.

the name of the proxy is phonepatch

[infoflux]

The name of the H323 proxy that I am familiar with is called phonepatch. I've been using it under Linux w/ IP masq and it works very well. I imagine it will work ok for your application as well. I don't remember the URL, but a web search on "phonepatch" should find what you're looking for

Re:i don't know how your FreeBSD box is set up, bu

[Drew M.]

Would you guys be able to tell me a little more about your setup? I've also tried to Socksify Netmeeting, but with horrible results. I've tried Sockscap32 v 1.x and 2.x beta with Netmeeting 3.01. Socks5 server release 1.0r9 running on a Linux box. I"m thinking Netmeeting 3.x is the problem, and I may decide to downgrade to 2.x soon. Jeez, downgrading MS software because it's broken.... how many times have I done that...... way too many.....
It seems that TCP would get socksified while UDP wouldn't. The UDP would attempt to traverse the firewall via NAT, and I was unable to recieve video or audio. And sometimes Netmeeting would just crash and dissapear all by itself, but I see that as normal anyways :P
And who was the brainiac that thought of using multiple dynamic port assignments? Why couldn't they just stick to one nice little fixed port so we could easily run this thing over NAT? It would have made life much easier for firewall admins.... Besides, there is no way in hell I"m opening up my firewall from TCP port 1024 to 65xxx just because Microsoft says so in their Netmeeting-Firewall HOWTO.

Drew

--
MS software makes the world go round, and machines crash into the ground