On 03/03/2015 12:48 PM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
This is an amazing community.
Thank you, we try.
But in all fairness, you are also the ideal newbie; you're asking very
specific, defined questions that have specific, detailed answers, so
it's easy to help you.
Sometimes newbies show up and
Will need to read a bit more to understanding it completely, but I think I
get the gist. Thanks again.
This is an amazing community.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Alex Balashov
wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 12:40 PM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
>
> BTW, Daniel - one point in your reply to Alex caught m
On 03/03/2015 12:40 PM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
BTW, Daniel - one point in your reply to Alex caught my attention "I
don't allow client EPs to do redirects"... perhaps this is very simply,
but how is this prohibited ?
This is something that is baked into the logic of your routing, i.e.
don't a
Thanks again Alex, pretty clear - I suppose.
BTW, Daniel - one point in your reply to Alex caught my attention "I don't
allow client EPs to do redirects"... perhaps this is very simply, but how
is this prohibited ?
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Daniel Tryba wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2015
On 03/03/2015 12:38 PM, Daniel Tryba wrote:
BTW I don't allow client endpoints to do redirects, I only accept this from my
redirecters so I'm not concerned about strange headers not handled by my
subst.
I understand. But it's still not "formally correct" because it captures
only one of the ma
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 18:31:13 Alex Balashov wrote:
> > $var(contact) = $(var(contact){re.subst,/^<(sip:\+?
> >
> > [0-9]+@.*)>$/\1/});
>
> I would recommend, from a best-practical perspective, not doing this
> substitution, but instead using transformations[1] to extract the
On 03/03/2015 12:32 PM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
Would Kamilio also take care to send out the ACK to end the trasaction
with B-party, and continue the relayed transaction with C-party ?
Indeed it will.
Is this, in effect same as serial forking ?
It is not only in effect the same as serial fo
Thanks Daniel, couldn't have asked for more.
Daniel and Alex, one further question... (theoretical, since I'm yet to try
this out) -
Would Kamilio also take care to send out the ACK to end the trasaction with
B-party, and continue the relayed transaction with C-party ?
Is this, in effect same as
On 03/03/2015 12:21 PM, Daniel Tryba wrote:
$var(contact) = $T_rpl($ct);
$var(contact) = $(var(contact){re.subst,/^<(sip:\+?
[0-9]+@.*)>$/\1/});
I would recommend, from a best-practical perspective, not doing this
substitution, but instead using transformatio
Thanks Alex.Wow, that was very fast.
I am new to Kamilio (and SIP in general), but a quick research tells that
I've to configure Kamilio to run in the transaction stateful mode, which in
turn brings down it's performance. Is that correct ?
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alex Balashov
wrote:
>
Thanks, that puts my performance worry to rest.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Alex Balashov
wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 12:08 PM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
>
> I am new to Kamilio (and SIP in general), but a quick research tells
>> that I've to configure Kamilio to run in the transaction stateful mo
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 17:56:45 Jayanth Acharya wrote:
> Would like to know if Kamilio (in it's sip-proxy role) could be configured
> to somehow take note of the 'Contact:' header of a 302 response from
> B-party, to forward the INVITE to C-party (specified by the updated Contact
> URI) ?
No pro
On 03/03/2015 12:08 PM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
I am new to Kamilio (and SIP in general), but a quick research tells
that I've to configure Kamilio to run in the transaction stateful mode,
which in turn brings down it's performance. Is that correct ?
No, not really. :-) This is true, strictly
Would like to know if Kamilio (in it's sip-proxy role) could be configured
to somehow take note of the 'Contact:' header of a 302 response from
B-party, to forward the INVITE to C-party (specified by the updated Contact
URI) ?
Alternatively, is there a way for the B-party SIP UAS to get the proxy
On 03/03/2015 11:56 AM, Jayanth Acharya wrote:
Would like to know if Kamilio (in it's sip-proxy role) could be
configured to somehow take note of the 'Contact:' header of a 302
response from B-party, to forward the INVITE to C-party (specified by
the updated Contact URI) ?
Absolutely. You can
15 matches
Mail list logo
