Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Jonathan Kay--WindowsXP Messenger Support for non-UPnP Rou..

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:21:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger (More info?)

Jonathan,


With regard to your statement about support for non-UPnP
routers being far better in MSN Messenger than WindowsXP Messenger, I found this
old post by John Holmes...

----------------------------

John Holmes [MSFT] Jun 11 2003, 2:12 pm

Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger
From: "John Holmes [MSFT]" <jhol...@online.microsoft.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:11:48 -0700
Local: Wed, Jun 11 2003 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: Messenger questions for John Holmes.

NATs present quite a bit of trouble in establishing a peer to peer
connection. If the NAT is not UPnP capable, I use a protocol that looks a
good bit like STUN to traverse the NAT. This allows us to get it right most
of the time.

What makes matters worse though is that the user can't do anything about it
by manually opening ports. This is for a number of reasons: first, we don't
actually control the SIP signaling that sets up the a/v call. Inside these
SIP packets is embedded your IP address and port that will be used for
media. But until recently (our v6) we haven't had the ability to specify an
external (public) IP and port to use for the call.

Now in v6, we do have that ability and are traversing many more devices than
we used to. I'm glad to hear that it's working better for you than previous
versions.

[snip]..

John Holmes
Developer, MSN Messenger

------------------------------

Apparently MSN Messenger has incorporated this STUN-like protocol
and is successful in transversing non-UPnP routers. For those of us who
prefer to use WindowsXP Messenger and must work with non-UPnP
routers, can we look forward to this support being included in
a future version of WindowsXP Messenger? I am currently
using Version 5.1.0680.

Thanks,

R Edmonds


------------------------

[Snip]...

Hi,

You'll see this because MSN Messenger has far better support for non-UPnP routers and it's
still using a protocol which is compatible with Windows Messenger so it works.

If you send out an invitation with Windows Messenger and don't have a UPnP router, it
simply
will not work period.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:21:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger (More info?)

Greetings,

As far as I know, there are no plans to add this into Windows Messenger.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2005 Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.

"Robert Edmonds" <redmonds@iu.net> wrote in message
news:%23TCeKDBvFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Jonathan,
>
>
> With regard to your statement about support for non-UPnP
> routers being far better in MSN Messenger than WindowsXP Messenger, I found this
> old post by John Holmes...
>
> ----------------------------
>
> John Holmes [MSFT] Jun 11 2003, 2:12 pm
>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger
> From: "John Holmes [MSFT]" <jhol...@online.microsoft.com> - Find messages by this author
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:11:48 -0700
> Local: Wed, Jun 11 2003 2:11 pm
> Subject: Re: Messenger questions for John Holmes.
>
> NATs present quite a bit of trouble in establishing a peer to peer
> connection. If the NAT is not UPnP capable, I use a protocol that looks a
> good bit like STUN to traverse the NAT. This allows us to get it right most
> of the time.
>
> What makes matters worse though is that the user can't do anything about it
> by manually opening ports. This is for a number of reasons: first, we don't
> actually control the SIP signaling that sets up the a/v call. Inside these
> SIP packets is embedded your IP address and port that will be used for
> media. But until recently (our v6) we haven't had the ability to specify an
> external (public) IP and port to use for the call.
>
> Now in v6, we do have that ability and are traversing many more devices than
> we used to. I'm glad to hear that it's working better for you than previous
> versions.
>
> [snip]..
>
> John Holmes
> Developer, MSN Messenger
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Apparently MSN Messenger has incorporated this STUN-like protocol
> and is successful in transversing non-UPnP routers. For those of us who
> prefer to use WindowsXP Messenger and must work with non-UPnP
> routers, can we look forward to this support being included in
> a future version of WindowsXP Messenger? I am currently
> using Version 5.1.0680.
>
> Thanks,
>
> R Edmonds
>
>
> ------------------------
>
> [Snip]...
>
> Hi,
>
> You'll see this because MSN Messenger has far better support for non-UPnP routers and it's
> still using a protocol which is compatible with Windows Messenger so it works.
>
> If you send out an invitation with Windows Messenger and don't have a UPnP router, it
> simply
> will not work period.
> ____________________________________________
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
> Associate Expert
>
>
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:43:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger (More info?)

hello i have a problem ms messenger is jamming up my system how do i free it
tried unistal . system restore only goes to today that is jammed also any
actoin i can take to overcome this problem? help help.

"Robert Edmonds" wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
>
> With regard to your statement about support for non-UPnP
> routers being far better in MSN Messenger than WindowsXP Messenger, I found this
> old post by John Holmes...
>
> ----------------------------
>
> John Holmes [MSFT] Jun 11 2003, 2:12 pm
>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger
> From: "John Holmes [MSFT]" <jhol...@online.microsoft.com> - Find messages by this author
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:11:48 -0700
> Local: Wed, Jun 11 2003 2:11 pm
> Subject: Re: Messenger questions for John Holmes.
>
> NATs present quite a bit of trouble in establishing a peer to peer
> connection. If the NAT is not UPnP capable, I use a protocol that looks a
> good bit like STUN to traverse the NAT. This allows us to get it right most
> of the time.
>
> What makes matters worse though is that the user can't do anything about it
> by manually opening ports. This is for a number of reasons: first, we don't
> actually control the SIP signaling that sets up the a/v call. Inside these
> SIP packets is embedded your IP address and port that will be used for
> media. But until recently (our v6) we haven't had the ability to specify an
> external (public) IP and port to use for the call.
>
> Now in v6, we do have that ability and are traversing many more devices than
> we used to. I'm glad to hear that it's working better for you than previous
> versions.
>
> [snip]..
>
> John Holmes
> Developer, MSN Messenger
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Apparently MSN Messenger has incorporated this STUN-like protocol
> and is successful in transversing non-UPnP routers. For those of us who
> prefer to use WindowsXP Messenger and must work with non-UPnP
> routers, can we look forward to this support being included in
> a future version of WindowsXP Messenger? I am currently
> using Version 5.1.0680.
>
> Thanks,
>
> R Edmonds
>
>
> ------------------------
>
> [Snip]...
>
> Hi,
>
> You'll see this because MSN Messenger has far better support for non-UPnP routers and it's
> still using a protocol which is compatible with Windows Messenger so it works.
>
> If you send out an invitation with Windows Messenger and don't have a UPnP router, it
> simply
> will not work period.
> ____________________________________________
> Jonathan Kay
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
> Associate Expert
>
>
>
!