23 aug 2013 kl. 08:13 skrev Steve Davies :
>
>
>
> On 23 August 2013 07:55, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> Please read the full documentation for t_relay. There's a lot of return codes
> that actually is really helpful. If it fails, read the return code and take
> action accordingly.
>
> Y
On 23 August 2013 07:55, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> Please read the full documentation for t_relay. There's a lot of return
> codes that actually is really helpful. If it fails, read the return code
> and take action accordingly.
>
> Yeah, I know I'm boring, but we do try to write proper referen
22 aug 2013 kl. 22:14 skrev Daniel-Constantin Mierla :
> Hello,
>
> On 8/22/13 9:18 PM, Steve Davies wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see that if 4.0.3 has a network error in sending a request, it sends back
>> a 477 response, but does not execute the t_on_failure route block.
>>
>> Which I want to use
Ok, generic database operations was the part I was overlooking. Makes sense,
thanks for clarifying!
-Original Message-
From: sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.sip-router.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:15 PM
To: sr-us
uac_replace_from() in the uac module can do that.
arun Jayaprakash wrote:
>Hello, can someone let me know how I can modify the "from user" when
>making an outbound PSTN call. For example, when I make a PSTN call now
>the caller ID shows up as my 4 digit extension but I would like my PSTN
>number
Hello, can someone let me know how I can modify the "from user" when making an
outbound PSTN call. For example, when I make a PSTN call now the caller ID
shows up as my 4 digit extension but I would like my PSTN number displayed
instead. Thank you.
Arun
_
Hello,
priority 0 should result in not using the connection, so the source code
has to be checked for proper analysis.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 8/22/13 10:48 PM, Charles Chance wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone able to confirm whether the cluster definition I provided
should indeed do what I think it shou
Hello,
Is anyone able to confirm whether the cluster definition I provided should
indeed do what I think it should? If so, I will take a look further myself
to find the reason why not.
Thanks in advance,
Charles
On 20 Aug 2013 16:18, "Charles Chance"
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm having difficultie
Hello,
On 8/22/13 9:18 PM, Steve Davies wrote:
Hi,
I see that if 4.0.3 has a network error in sending a request, it sends
back a 477 response, but does not execute the t_on_failure route block.
Which I want to use to route the call via a local alternative gateway.
I saw a bug that talked ab
Polishing and finishing the acc chapter took more than expected,
combined with some travelings in my side. Hopefully next week we can
provide more exact details about availability.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 8/22/13 8:28 PM, Isaac McDonald wrote:
I look forward to buying the pre-release. I'll keep an
Hi,
I see that if 4.0.3 has a network error in sending a request, it sends back
a 477 response, but does not execute the t_on_failure route block.
Which I want to use to route the call via a local alternative gateway.
I saw a bug that talked about the failure_exec_mode modparam, but that's
not l
I look forward to buying the pre-release. I'll keep an eye on the list.
Thanks!
On 8/7/2013 11:34 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
being asked for quite a while about this topic, I can give now more
details about if there is or is going to be any time soon Kamailio book.
We are just
I haven't used uac_replace_from() anywhere in the config. Is the UAC
module supposed to correct the from address automatically?
On 8/13/2013 3:05 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 7/31/13 7:00 AM, Isaac McDonald wrote:
Hello,
I'm using the UAC module to perform remote registratio
On 8/22/13 6:04 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 08/22/2013 11:56 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Yes, definitely works -- rtpproxy forwards t.38/udptl.
It does?! Since when?
In my short memory, that would be since ever, like from ser times.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - ht
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Indeed, the efective execution of the actions was missing.
thanks, now it works.
-- juha
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-rout
On 08/22/2013 11:56 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Yes, definitely works -- rtpproxy forwards t.38/udptl.
It does?! Since when?
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur, GA 30030
United States
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evari
On 8/22/13 5:24 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
Hope I caught it and fixed now in master.
i tried, but still no luck:
Indeed, the efective execution of the actions was missing.
I will comment over the rest of proposed changes once I will check the
sources.
Cheer
On 8/22/13 5:26 PM, Daniel Tryba wrote:
On Thursday 22 August 2013 12:46:49 Alex Balashov wrote:
> T.38
This is a media/codec question, and is elaborated upon in the SDP
payload, to which the proxy is totally agnostic, except in cases where
rtpproxy is involved.
Rtpproxy proxies RTP, not UD
On Thursday 22 August 2013 12:46:49 Alex Balashov wrote:
> > T.38
>
> This is a media/codec question, and is elaborated upon in the SDP
> payload, to which the proxy is totally agnostic, except in cases where
> rtpproxy is involved.
>
> Rtpproxy proxies RTP, not UDPTL. So, it won't relay T.38 f
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Hope I caught it and fixed now in master.
i tried, but still no luck:
Aug 22 18:15:18 siika /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[21745]: INFO:
[parser/parse_fline.c:229]: parse_first_line(): ERROR:parse_first_line: bad
request first line
Aug 22 18:15:18 siika /usr/sbin/sip-p
A side note to let people know that inside sources of kamailio is a set
of shell scripts that do various test scenarios (using sipp) -- they are
located inside test/unit/ folder.
While they target now to detect basic issues upon development of
kamailio, some of them are a good start to build y
Hope I caught it and fixed now in master.
Regarding the verbosity, debug can be lowered, as one option that can be
done now.
The second is to update the code so these log messages are printed to
corelog level and change this value in config to be higher than debug:
http://www.kamailio.org/w
On 8/22/13 10:28 AM, Roberto Fichera wrote:
[...]
Unfortunately not! I haven't found yet a solution to workaround the
openssl patch!
I guess we cannot easily workaround inside the kamailio tls module
since the
problem is strictly related to openssl.
Can you share the openssl patch? Maybe we f
On 22 August 2013 15:13, Alex Balashov wrote:
> I do not disagree with any of that, or with testing your flows end-to-end
> to uncover problems. I just meant that most of your examples were not
> particularly anchored, conceptually.
>
OK - I concede that point. Since it was really just a top-of
I do not disagree with any of that, or with testing your flows end-to-end to
uncover problems. I just meant that most of your examples were not particularly
anchored, conceptually.
The subscribe/notify may be rather more of an exception.
Steve Davies wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>On 22 August 2013 12:
Hi Alex,
On 22 August 2013 12:46, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2013 06:25 AM, Steve Davies wrote:
>
> Ordinary outbound and inbound calls
>> Holding / unholding
>> "Blind" transfers
>> "Attended" transfers
>> mid-call reINVITEs (session timers?)
>> T.38
>> Subscriptions
>>
>
> The specifi
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> I backported the patch for the log message and now I pushed a patch that
> executes event_route[core:receive-parse-error] in such case as well,
> allowing for config interaction. Can you give it a test, I had no time
> to do it so far and have to go for a whil
On 8/22/13 7:11 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
We can add an event_route for it as well as print the src ip in the log
message for quick fix (this one can be backported easy).
thanks for the quick fix. please backport to 4.0. for the next
release, event_route woul
Hi
I'm trying to work with RLS. Is there a way of allowing user1 and user2
to both subscribe to a common group of contacts, group.common? Seems
that each user can only subscribe to its own resource list and won't be
able to subscribe to other user's resource list.
For example, both user1 and user
Hi Steve,
On 08/22/2013 06:25 AM, Steve Davies wrote:
Ordinary outbound and inbound calls
Holding / unholding
"Blind" transfers
"Attended" transfers
mid-call reINVITEs (session timers?)
T.38
Subscriptions
The specificity of almost all of these scenarios lies in the user agents
that are the e
Hi Kamailians,
Can anyone on the list point me at a list of call flow scenarios I should
consider and test to be confident my proxy setup works properly.
I'm not looking at the moment for some sort of SIPit torture test, just a
sensible set of scenarios.
This is for my client side "outbound sip/
Alex Balashov writes:
> But it seems to me that options_reply() ought to answer with a 404 Not
> Found; it's what other UASs (like Asterisk) do...
your sip proxy should check if the request is for itself or for a local
user. if for local user, forward. if for itself and the request is
options
On 08/22/2013 04:38 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
The Asterisk answer depends on your dialplan :-)
Well, true, true. If there's a matching route, it'll answer affirmatively.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur, GA 30030
United States
Tel
On 08/22/2013 04:34 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
22 aug 2013 kl. 10:27 skrev Alex Balashov :
On 08/22/2013 04:25 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Guessing that a URI with a user name should be forwarded to that
address. URIs pointing to the domain of the server should be
responded by the server.
22 aug 2013 kl. 10:37 skrev Alex Balashov :
> On 08/22/2013 04:34 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>
>> 22 aug 2013 kl. 10:27 skrev Alex Balashov :
>>
>>> On 08/22/2013 04:25 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>>
Guessing that a URI with a user name should be forwarded to that
address. URIs
On 08/22/2013 04:34 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Alex Balashov writes:
Yes, but shouldn't sip:user@proxy_ip and sip:proxy_ip both be serviced
by the server?
if sip proxy is serving 'user' then usually it forwards any request to
contact of that user. of course your policy may differ, i.e., you ma
Alex Balashov writes:
> Yes, but shouldn't sip:user@proxy_ip and sip:proxy_ip both be serviced
> by the server?
if sip proxy is serving 'user' then usually it forwards any request to
contact of that user. of course your policy may differ, i.e., you may
require that host part is domain name, but
22 aug 2013 kl. 10:27 skrev Alex Balashov :
> On 08/22/2013 04:25 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
>> Guessing that a URI with a user name should be forwarded to that
>> address. URIs pointing to the domain of the server should be
>> responded by the server.
>
> Yes, but shouldn't sip:user@proxy_
On 08/22/2013 10:23 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
> On 8/22/13 9:00 AM, Roberto Fichera wrote:
>> On 08/21/2013 10:23 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On 8/20/13 4:24 PM, Roberto Fichera wrote:
[...]
> Mmmhhh!!! Looks like this particular version has problem,
Hello,
On 8/22/13 10:07 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hello,
The options_reply() function does not answer OPTIONS pings that
contain a username in the request URI. To its credit, the
documentation does say that, too:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.0.x/modules/siputils.html#idp131056
The qu
On 08/22/2013 04:25 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Guessing that a URI with a user name should be forwarded to that
address. URIs pointing to the domain of the server should be
responded by the server.
Yes, but shouldn't sip:user@proxy_ip and sip:proxy_ip both be serviced
by the server?
--
Al
22 aug 2013 kl. 10:07 skrev Alex Balashov :
> Hello,
>
> The options_reply() function does not answer OPTIONS pings that contain a
> username in the request URI. To its credit, the documentation does say that,
> too:
>
> http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.0.x/modules/siputils.html#idp13105
On 8/22/13 9:00 AM, Roberto Fichera wrote:
On 08/21/2013 10:23 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 8/20/13 4:24 PM, Roberto Fichera wrote:
[...]
Mmmhhh!!! Looks like this particular version has problem, see:
http://bugs.python.org/msg191610
I can confirm that the bug is present
Hello,
The options_reply() function does not answer OPTIONS pings that contain
a username in the request URI. To its credit, the documentation does
say that, too:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.0.x/modules/siputils.html#idp131056
The question is: why not? I do not see anything in RF
Good day,
Quick question for the group. I am looking at choosing an open source product
to potentially use for enterprise presence. The solution would be on the
receiving end of SIP NOTIFY messages from Cisco CUCM clusters. This is a very
large enterprise environment. I am hoping to stay o
On 08/21/2013 10:23 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 8/20/13 4:24 PM, Roberto Fichera wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Mmmhhh!!! Looks like this particular version has problem, see:
>>>
>>> http://bugs.python.org/msg191610
>>
>> I can confirm that the bug is present in both Fedora 18 & 19. Th
46 matches
Mail list logo
