Re: [SR-Users] core in dialog module

2011-05-16 Thread Anton Roman
Hi, yes, you're totally right, we got the core in other server and I though the fix was included in the code we compiled in this server, but it wasn't. My fault. Now, a very recent copy of the 3.1 git branch is running, Daniel's patch is included. I'll keep you informed but it should go fine. Th

Re: [SR-Users] geoip problem, finally solved

2011-05-16 Thread Henning Westerholt
On Thursday 12 May 2011, Francesco Castellano wrote: > Regarding the package geoip-database-contrib from sid, actually I > don't know because I have no sid available at the moment, but my guess > is yes, I think they are the correct DBs. Anyway, as soon as I will be > able to check it, I'll answer

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2011/5/16 Daniel-Constantin Mierla : >> Ok, I didn't know that t_save_lumps also saves AVP's. That's good. > > no, it does not save the avps. But there should be the same avp list used no > matter the transaction is already created or not. In other words, when the > transaction is createed, the ac

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
On 5/16/11 3:38 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: 2011/5/16 Daniel-Constantin Mierla: The 3.x provides a way to save the changes done to message after t_newtrans() to transaction: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm.html#t_save_lumps Regarding avps, the same list should be used afte

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2011/5/16 Daniel-Constantin Mierla : > The 3.x provides a way to save the changes done to message after > t_newtrans() to transaction: > http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.1.x/modules/tm.html#t_save_lumps > > Regarding avps, the same list should be used after creating the transaction, > so new avps

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 5/16/11 3:22 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: 2011/5/16 Daniel-Constantin Mierla: no, it should behave the same in 3.x. The behavior was there before openser forked from ser, but probably the documentation was updated in the openser branch over the time and then with the migration to tm

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Henning Westerholt
On Monday 16 May 2011, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > > So, does 3.X behave different and changes after t_newtran are added to > > the transaction or not? > > no, it should behave the same in 3.x. The behavior was there before > openser forked from ser, but probably the documentation was update

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2011/5/16 Daniel-Constantin Mierla : > no, it should behave the same in 3.x. The behavior was there before openser > forked from ser, but probably the documentation was updated in the openser > branch over the time and then with the migration to tm from ser 2.0 was > lost. Thanks for the response.

Re: [SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 5/16/11 2:49 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: Hi, as Kamailio 1.5 TM documentation states, changes to transaction (adding headers, filling AVP's and so) after calling t_newtran() are not saved into the transaction: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/tm.html#id2510920 NOTE that

[SR-Users] Does t_newtran() behave different than in Kamailio 1.5?

2011-05-16 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
Hi, as Kamailio 1.5 TM documentation states, changes to transaction (adding headers, filling AVP's and so) after calling t_newtran() are not saved into the transaction: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/tm.html#id2510920 NOTE that the changes on the request that are made after this funct

Re: [SR-Users] nathelpler module path support

2011-05-16 Thread Klaus Darilion
Am 13.05.2011 18:10, schrieb Asgaroth: > Hi Klaus, > > On 13/05/2011, Klaus Darilion wrote: >> Sending OPTIONS/INFO keep-alives should be possible from the registrar. >> Sending just CRLF for keep-alive can only be done by the outboundproxy. >> > > How would I achieve this from the registrar?

Re: [SR-Users] redirect implementation with dispatcher

2011-05-16 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, can you put some xlog messages with the uri after ds_select_domain() execution? Do several tests to see what destination address is selected. Also, put here the content of the records for the dispatcher groups in use. Cheers, Daniel On 5/11/11 11:12 AM, alex pappas wrote: Dear all,