I've never seen anything that might imply it does. In fact h.323 is, as 
others have mentioned, a PITA to set up behind a NAT unless there are 
gateways involved - and m0n0 isn't one.

Most people nowadays use IAX2 (works pretty well with NATs) and SIP 
(works well most of the time, but in *some* cases requires an STUN 
server) instead of h.323, so it all depends on your specific needs.

Wesley K. Joyce wrote:
> What about h.323 voice AND video AND data sharing with endpoints like Polycomm, or even Netmeeting
like Giuseppe asked.  Historically there have always been problems doing h.323 behind a NAT
firewall.   Usually you have to use a Cisco PIX with h.323 fixups or some other h.323 NAT gateway.
>  
> Does monowall over come the issue of NAT and H3.323 for video conferencing? 
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: sai [mailto:sonicsai at gmail dot com]
> Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 4:00 AM
> To: Marc R. Meshurle Jr.
> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] h.323
>
>
>
> On 3/11/06, Marc R. Meshurle Jr. <MarcM at katotech dot com> wrote:
>   
>> Has anyone used the m0n0wall for h.323 voice applications? I'm in the process of setting up a
large VoIP network and would like to keep the m0n0 in place as the firewall.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>     
>
>   
>> Marc R. Meshurle, Jr.
>>
>>     
>
> Lots of people using Vonage, Asterix etc.
>
> sai
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>
>
>
>