Simplest thing to do would be to use 'dispatcher' with round-robin
strategy and enter the servers in the table or list file in duplicate,
in proportion to the weight allocation they have.
On 07/27/2010 01:55 AM, Chandrakant Solanki wrote:
Hello,
I have setup 3 SIP server. It should be Kamail
Hello,
I have setup 3 SIP server. It should be Kamailio, Asterisk or Any SIP
Server.
I have setup 3 server say Server A, Server B and Server C and each has
weight like 50, 30, 20 in percentage.
And I taken 10 calls and try to forward call based on weight.
Is this possible in kamailio's module..
Guys,
Anyone has some feedback on this?
Thanks,
Kevin
Hi All,
I have the kamailio configed as below on Solaris 10 (Sparc):
# - nathelper -
#!ifdef WITH_NAT
modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "udp:127.0.0.1:7722")
modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30)
mo
Hi,
try using force_send_socket but you'll have to declare the socket with
5060 as well
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/core-cookbook:3.0.x#force_send_socket
Cheers,
Uriel
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Robert R wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to run multiple different instances of op
Hi,
I am trying to run multiple different instances of openser on the same
server using different ports.
Regardless of receiving INVITE on any of the ports (5061, 5062, ...) I want
openser always to proxy the message to port 5060.
invite:5061 ---> openser --> invite:5060
invite:5062 ---> opens
Hello,
I have the following transformation on the SDP Body:
$(rb{re.subst,/^(.*)m=audio ([0-9]+) RTP\/AVP ([0-9 ]+)\015\012(.*)$/\3/s})
However when I assign this to an AVP, i.e.
$avp(s:sdp-payloads) = $(rb{re.subst,/^(.*)m=audio ([0-9]+) RTP\/AVP ([0-9
]+)\015\012(.*)$/\3/s});
I receive b
Hello,
The script in the source scripts/mysql/my_create.sql uses the the
following definition
CREATE TABLE domain (
did VARCHAR(64) NOT NULL,
domain VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
flags INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
UNIQUE KEY domain_idx (domain),
KEY did_idx (did)
);
The s
El día 26 de julio de 2010 12:48, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
escribió:
>> To clarify: when you call t_on_branch("N") it means that *after*
>> calling t_relay() the block branch_route[N] will be executed for
>> *each* branch.
>> So the position of t_on_branch() is not important (it must be before
On 07/26/2010 06:48 AM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
On Monday 26 July 2010 11:21:02 Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El día 26 de julio de 2010 07:20, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
escribió:
Umm ... again confused ... does the execution of the cfg continues AFTER
the append_branch call,just
On Monday 26 July 2010 11:21:02 Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El día 26 de julio de 2010 07:20, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
>
> escribió:
> > Umm ... again confused ... does the execution of the cfg continues AFTER
> > the append_branch call,just on the next line ... or it "begins"
> > on "t_on_bra
El día 26 de julio de 2010 07:20, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
escribió:
> Umm ... again confused ... does the execution of the cfg continues AFTER the
> append_branch call,just on the next line ... or it "begins"
> on "t_on_branch()"?
To clarify: when you call t_on_branch("N") it means that *aft
On Monday 26 July 2010 10:15:47 Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El día 26 de julio de 2010 08:14, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
>
> escribió:
> >> It might be more helpful to think of it as: execution continues right
> >> where it was in the request route, but a branch route is also later
> >> called r
El día 26 de julio de 2010 08:14, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
escribió:
>> It might be more helpful to think of it as: execution continues right
>> where it was in the request route, but a branch route is also later
>> called right before the message is forwarded on the given branch, not
>> in pa
On 07/26/2010 03:19 AM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
On Monday 26 July 2010 07:22:42 Alex Balashov wrote:
On 07/26/2010 02:14 AM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
I don't undestand ... so ... execution continues in the next line, just
after append_branch for BOTH branches, but wenever
On Monday 26 July 2010 07:22:42 Alex Balashov wrote:
> On 07/26/2010 02:14 AM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
> > I don't undestand ... so ... execution continues in the next line, just
> > after append_branch for BOTH branches, but wenever I call t_relay ...
> > BOTH branches will pass throug
15 matches
Mail list logo
