Re: [SR-Users] LCR prefix based

Thanks all for your answers. It's not so simple to update and bring the configuration into sr3 config file. But this is a supplementary argument in favor of this update. Thanks. Le jeudi 26 août 2010 à 18:25 +0200, Henning Westerholt a écrit : > On Thursday 26 August 2010, inge wrote:

[SR-Users] LCR prefix based

Hi, I'm still disapointed after reading the documentation of LCR module. I use SER 0.9.9 and I'm wondering if it's possible to use LCR based on destination prefix ? I mean that if I call 056X I want to use GW1. For 06 I want to use GW2, etc. Thank you for your opinion. Regards, Adrien

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

Very clear ! thanks. Le jeudi 08 juillet 2010 à 13:00 +0200, Klaus Darilion a écrit : > > Am 07.07.2010 19:30, schrieb inge: > > Yes, why not, but in a few moment ;) > > > > Does SER 3.0 released ? In the siprouter project ? > > There is no ser/sip-router 3.0 "

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

Yes, why not, but in a few moment ;) Does SER 3.0 released ? In the siprouter project ? Le mercredi 07 juillet 2010 à 09:17 +0200, Klaus Darilion a écrit : > > Am 06.07.2010 20:03, schrieb inge: > > I quickly tried this but I cannot used "exec" within the onreply_route.

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

I quickly tried this but I cannot used "exec" within the onreply_route. So the problem stay the same. I don't know how to execute my script only on established calls... Any help/suggestion would be appreciate. Thank you ! Regards, Adrien Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 19:32 +020

Re: [SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

t; Hi Adrien, > > On 07/06/2010 10:39 AM, inge wrote: > > > Firstly, I was thinking to make a difference using the CSeq field, but > > it seems that the CSeq on ACK contains the ACK himself. Probably because > > ACK is a request and not a response. > > You are co

[SR-Users] Differentiation between ACK INVITE and ACK CANCEL

Hello all, I need to work on particular ACK within the configuration of SER 0.9.9. Firstly, I was thinking to make a difference using the CSeq field, but it seems that the CSeq on ACK contains the ACK himself. Probably because ACK is a request and not a response. Would it be possible to proceed

Re: [SR-Users] Match ip source of response into failure_route

Hi Andrei, Great idea ! It seems to work. Thank you. Regards, Adrien .L Le lundi 07 juin 2010 à 21:52 +0200, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul a écrit : > On Jun 07, 2010 at 19:22, inge wrote: > > Hi Henning, > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > > > I'm using ser

Re: [SR-Users] Match ip source of response into failure_route

Hi Henning, Thanks for your reply. I'm using ser 0.9.9. It looks to answer my need, but I need something usable on this branch. If anyone have an idea? Regards, Adrien .L Le vendredi 04 juin 2010 à 16:36 +0200, Henning Westerholt a écrit : > On Friday 04 June 2010, in

[SR-Users] Match ip source of response into failure_route

Hi all, I try to do something like this on my failure_route[1] : if (t_check_status("503")) { if (ip_src==A.B.C.D) { ... } } The goal, is to prevent a 503 from a PSTN gateway and try another one for terminating the call. But, I realize that "src_ip" is the IP so