The billing system should use the callid+from-tag+to-tag to match the
invite with the bye. Relying only on callid can result on other issues
over the times. Forking through a proxy is quite common and specified in
RFC 3261.
Anyhow, event there is parallel forking to many branches, only one gets
a
Thanks for confirming Daniel
My issue is, that the call will pass a system with billing, which uses
the callid, to keep track of the calls.
I can live with running multiple instances in this project.
I also have a Asterisk in my system, which I use to generate new
callid's. I would like to t
Hello,
On 23/02/2017 12:47, Kjeld Flarup wrote:
> I ran into the same problem. Just that I may have more than two parallel
> forks.
> Am I right, that I need a kamailio instance for each fork.
>
what kind of problem? The next hop is matching on R-URI or it requires
different Call-ID because of ot
I ran into the same problem. Just that I may have more than two parallel
forks.
Am I right, that I need a kamailio instance for each fork.
--
View this message in context:
http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Parallel-Forking-with-Different-Call-Id-tp150146p156310.html
Sent from the Users ma
Thanks Daniel,
Both are good ideas and I will try and see how it goes. I just wanted to
confirm that there is no way we can modify CallID of branches via script.
This is fine too.
Thanks again,
Best Regards,
Sammy
On Jul 6, 2016 06:11, "Daniel-Constantin Mierla" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> maybe you ca
Hello,
maybe you can loop through a 2nd instance of kamailio (can be same
server, different port) that has topoh enabled.
Otherwise, if the gateway is matching on full r-uri, you can try to add
some extra uri params, which are not relevant for target number.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 05/07/16 21:54, S
Hi,
I've a very strange scenario to work on which requires me to parallel fork
the call to the same Destination provider. The only problem here is that
they think that the second INVITE with different branch tag is a
re-transmission and hence only take one call forward.
I do not have to modify an
I found INFO about "b" flag for rtpproxy-ng module. It may solve my
porblem, but as I understand, rtpengine not support this flag.
I thought about adiing rtpproxy handling after append_branch (something
like branch_route) but con not find any info how to use it after
branching... Does anybody help
Forget some things:
All calls going form asterisk viaUDP.
t_relay calling out of loop. At the end.
When t_relay at loop first packet goes great but INVITE to second
destinationd not going and ended with ERROR "can't generate 200 reply when
a final 200 was sent out"
2014-10-17 20:33 GMT+04:00 Yuri
Hello. I try to do parallel fork calls to endpoints that have same
username and different destination URI. Logic of my script:
checking location table for rows with needed account
get info from contact at loop
for every step
check technology (sip or ws)
append_branch with existing destination fo
You can test to see if get_redirects() works ok in branch failure route
and if yes, then make a patch for it and will be added.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 21/02/14 10:59, Andrew Pogrebennyk wrote:
In the meantime it works if I access $T_rpl($ct) from per-branch failure
route.
Thanks.
On 02/20/2014 02
In the meantime it works if I access $T_rpl($ct) from per-branch failure
route.
Thanks.
On 02/20/2014 02:14 PM, Andrew Pogrebennyk wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> we do seem to have a problem here, the get_redirects() function can be
> used from the FAILURE_ROUTE only, not from per branch failure route
> (
Daniel,
we do seem to have a problem here, the get_redirects() function can be
used from the FAILURE_ROUTE only, not from per branch failure route
("Command cannot be used in the block").
Does it mean that uac_redirect module needs an update?
Andrew
On 02/18/2014 10:38 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mier
Hi Daniel,
On 02/18/2014 10:38 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> starting with 4.1, you can have per branch failure routing block:
>
> http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.1.x/modules/tm.html#tm.f.t_on_branch_failure
Ha, we'll check if this is going to work for us, sounds good, thanks!
Jus
Hello,
starting with 4.1, you can have per branch failure routing block:
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.1.x/modules/tm.html#tm.f.t_on_branch_failure
Cheers,
Daniel
On 18/02/14 10:28, Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi,
What is the intended behaviour from a general point of view if you get a
1x
Hi,
What is the intended behaviour from a general point of view if you get a
1xx on one branch and a 30x on another branch for a parallel fork?
>From my understanding, the 30x is a final reply, so it's kept in tm
until all other branches are finished, then it enters failure-route with
the highest
Jeremya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having some issues with recording in rtpproxy when I parallel fork
> an incoming call.
>
> The scenario is that I want to record incoming calls to a small number
> of operators, and the call is converted to an 'all-call' by the local
> kamailio instance - parallel forki
Hi,
I'm having some issues with recording in rtpproxy when I parallel fork
an incoming call.
The scenario is that I want to record incoming calls to a small number
of operators, and the call is converted to an 'all-call' by the local
kamailio instance - parallel forking.
It appears - though I co
18 matches
Mail list logo
