On 11/11/2010 09:17 PM, JR Richardson wrote:
So the append_branch should not be used, ok, what about just the
t_relay and exit?
if (t_check_status("486")) {
t_relay();
exit;
}
Would this work?
This is a failure route, a special type of reply route. Replies are
automatically passed
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/11/11 JR Richardson :
>> I was thinking about including this in my failure route:
>>
>> if (t_check_status("486")) {
>> append_branch();
>> t_relay();
>> }
>>
>> Would that do any good?
>
> The above code instructs Kamailio
2010/11/2 Kosilov Fedor :
> OK, and how do you usually deal with this? I was thinking of putting the
> Q-value into the "Display Name" field, so when the device registers, I could
> get it using $fn (reference to display name of 'From' header) and put it
> directly to the location table in the data
2010/11/8 hala alramli
>
> i want to instal tunnel server in kamailio .
> i want to ask if there is any opensource voip tunnel server .
> and if there is an tutorial to configure kamailio with tunnel server
What is a "tunnel server"?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
_
2010/11/11 JR Richardson :
> I was thinking about including this in my failure route:
>
> if (t_check_status("486")) {
> append_branch();
> t_relay();
> }
>
> Would that do any good?
The above code instructs Kamailio to create a new branch to the same
destination upon receipt of hte 486 re
Hi All,
Asterisk>http://pastebin.com/crfMe81D
Here is a pastebin of the call graph:
http://pastebin.com/rnQZDyFU
I was thinking about including this in my failure route:
if (t_check_status("486")) {
append_branch();
t_relay();
}
Would that do any good?
Thanks.
JR
--
JR Richardson
Hello,
On 11/11/10 11:02 PM, Morten Isaksen wrote:
Hi Daniel,
The Via line is OK, it was the email formating.
I am using Kamailio 3.0.3 and the sanity docs says:
This function makes a row of sanity checks on the given request. The
function returns false (-1) if one of the checks failed. If on
Hi Daniel,
The Via line is OK, it was the email formating.
I am using Kamailio 3.0.3 and the sanity docs says:
This function makes a row of sanity checks on the given request. The
function returns false (-1) if one of the checks failed. If one of the
checks fails the module sends a precise error
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/10 7:42 PM, JR Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I'm still getting these errors and I'm struggling to resolve the
>>> problem. I think I'm missing an append_branch or something simple in
>>> my config, a littl
Hello,
looking now again at the trace you sent first time, the ACK is:
U 2010/10/28 10:51:13.267863 178.21.248.20:5060 -> 178.21.248.7:5060
ACKsip:1...@178.21.248.56:5060 SIP/2.0.
Record-Route:.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 178.21.248.20;branch=z9hG4bK690c.97354e4.2.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
87.104.233.108:5060;r
Hello,
On 11/11/10 5:35 PM, Lee Archer wrote:
Hi, can anyone answer this?
Regards
Lee
*From:*sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] *On Behalf Of *Lee Archer
*Sent:* 10 November 2010 10:25
*To:* sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
*Subject:* [SR-User
On 11/11/10 7:42 PM, JR Richardson wrote:
Hi All,
I'm still getting these errors and I'm struggling to resolve the
problem. I think I'm missing an append_branch or something simple in
my config, a little guiedance will be appriciated.
The error:
Nov 11 10:23:26 sip-router1 /usr/local/sbin/k
> Hi All,
>
> I'm still getting these errors and I'm struggling to resolve the
> problem. I think I'm missing an append_branch or something simple in
> my config, a little guiedance will be appriciated.
>
> The error:
>
> Nov 11 10:23:26 sip-router1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[23739]: ERROR: tm
> [t_
On 11/11/2010 11:52 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
2. Yes. throw an append_branch() into your failure route.
To expand on this; the proxy can't just arbitrarily t_relay() again
after it has received a final negative reply. That's not what proxies
do. The only way it can happen is if a proxy use
1. One problem may be that you are calling route[RELAY] from your
failure route and using sl_send_reply(). The route[RELAY] is still
being invoked in a failure route execution context, even if you have
managed to contextually invoke another route, or subroutine if you will.
Stateless replies
Hi All,
I'm still getting these errors and I'm struggling to resolve the
problem. I think I'm missing an append_branch or something simple in
my config, a little guiedance will be appriciated.
The error:
Nov 11 10:23:26 sip-router1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[23739]: ERROR: tm
[t_fwd.c:1379]: ERRO
Hi, can anyone answer this?
Regards
Lee
From: sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of Lee Archer
Sent: 10 November 2010 10:25
To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Subject: [SR-Users] Variable substitution with Dispatcher
Hi, I a
Hi,
I narrowed it down to the sanity_check.
if(!sanity_check("1511", "7"))
{
xlog("L_WARN", "sanity check - M=$rm RURI=$ru F=$fu
T=$tu IP=$si ID=$ci\n");
exit;
}
The sanity_check fails but does not send a reply back or log the above
line. I have
18 matches
Mail list logo
