This forum includes tips for maintaining the best audio quality possible with the Ooma System. If your Ooma system is having issues with dropped calls, static audio or echo, look here for assistance.
#98076 by rocksockdoc
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:02 pm
Does the Ooma Telo implement NAT (network address translation)?

I reported my dismal call quality (e.g., jitter = 10 ms to 100ms depending on when I check) to my Wireless ISP (WISP) who said it might be due to double NAT'ing.

He asked me if the Ooma does NAT. I have no clue ... so I ask you.

Does the Ooma do NAT?
#98101 by rocksockdoc
Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:19 pm
lbmofo wrote:If you have nothing connected to the "Home Network" port of Ooma, nothing is doubled NAT'ed.


OK. So at this point, with the Ooma Telo wirelessly connected by the dongle, it's not double NAT'ed:
wireless tranceiver - router - ooma

Which, in 'modem' (wired transceiver) terminology is the same as:
modem - router - ooma

lbmofo wrote:All the stuff connected behind that port would be considered double NAT'ed.


Hmm.. So when I hook the Ooma to the line coming into the house, does that double NAT me?
modem - ooma - router
#98106 by murphy
Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:46 pm
rocksockdoc wrote:Hmm.. So when I hook the Ooma to the line coming into the house, does that double NAT me?
modem - ooma - router

Yes. There is nothing wrong with double NAT. It is far more secure than single NAT.
#98145 by murphy
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:59 pm
rocksockdoc wrote:Is there a way to turn OFF the NAT that happens inside the Ooma Telo?

No.
#98153 by Davesworld
Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:48 am
murphy wrote:
rocksockdoc wrote:Hmm.. So when I hook the Ooma to the line coming into the house, does that double NAT me?
modem - ooma - router

Yes. There is nothing wrong with double NAT. It is far more secure than single NAT.


It should be avoided if possible if for no other reason, performance and drops. You'll have plenty of opportunity to experience multiple natting in the years to come when we have ipv6 being translated to ipv4 and back again multiple times between you and your destination. I hope and pray that the several year transition will not be as bad for voip as I fear it will be.

As far as being more secure, not really, once an uncommanded packet is dropped by the first firewall, it's gone into a black hole never to be seen again in this universe and can no way pull a Lazarus and rise from the dead and then move on to the next nat and pester it. Nat traversal is a HUGE part of a VOIP provider's development overhead and historically there have been many problems with traversal over one nat much less more than one. In some cases STUN servers had to be used in lieu of proxies from some providers.

Ideally you want one nat being handled by a router with plenty of processing power (doesn't have to be THAT high) and stateful packet inspection. Your firewall should drop, NOT reject all uncommanded incoming packets.
#98214 by rocksockdoc
Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:54 am
Davesworld wrote:[NAT] should be avoided if possible if for no other reason, performance and drops.


I don't disagree. All over the net I see the question asked and the answer is double NAT buys you nothing but trouble.
More to the point, my wireless ISP asked me if the Ooma did NAT because his opinion is similar.

Davesworld wrote:As far as being more secure, not really


Again, I agree. If I'm expecting the wall of my house to prevent intruders, if the intruder can get through the first wall, he probably already has the tools & knowledge to also get through the second wall just as easily. At the very best, it slows him down a bit. At the worst, double NAT screws up VOIP (according to my WISP).

Davesworld wrote:you want one nat being handled by a router with plenty of processing power


Does the Linksys WRT54G have the necessary processing power?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests