Re: [SR-Users] Parallel Forking with Different Call-Id

2017-02-24 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
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

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel Forking with Different Call-Id

2017-02-24 Thread Kjeld Flarup
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

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel Forking with Different Call-Id

2017-02-23 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
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

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel Forking with Different Call-Id

2017-02-23 Thread Kjeld Flarup
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

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel Forking with Different Call-Id

2016-07-06 Thread SamyGo
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

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel Forking with Different Call-Id

2016-07-06 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
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

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking

2014-10-20 Thread Yuriy Gorlichenko
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

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking

2014-10-17 Thread Yuriy Gorlichenko
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

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking and 30x

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
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

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking and 30x

2014-02-21 Thread Andrew Pogrebennyk
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 > (

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking and 30x

2014-02-20 Thread Andrew Pogrebennyk
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

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking and 30x

2014-02-18 Thread Andreas Granig
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

Re: [SR-Users] parallel forking and 30x

2014-02-18 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
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

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel forking and recording with rtpproxy?

2010-12-02 Thread Jeremya
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