RE: [Asterisk-Users] Previous sip reload not yet done

2005-04-04 Thread Nabeel Jafferali
Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a workaround? Yeah, I had this problem when I added a lot of SIP register statements and SIP peers. Changing the hostnames (FQDNs) to IP addresses solved the problem. It seem * was getting stuck waiting for DNS lookups. Nabeel

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Previous sip reload not yet done

2005-04-04 Thread administrator tootai
Nabeel Jafferali a écrit : Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a workaround? Yeah, I had this problem when I added a lot of SIP register statements and SIP peers. Changing the hostnames (FQDNs) to IP addresses solved the problem. It seem * was getting stuck waiting for DNS lookups.

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Previous sip reload not yet done

2005-04-04 Thread Olle E. Johansson
administrator tootai wrote: Nabeel Jafferali a écrit : Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a workaround? Yeah, I had this problem when I added a lot of SIP register statements and SIP peers. Changing the hostnames (FQDNs) to IP addresses solved the problem. It seem * was getting stuck

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Previous sip reload not yet done

2005-04-04 Thread administrator tootai
Olle E. Johansson a écrit : administrator tootai wrote: Nabeel Jafferali a écrit : Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a workaround? Yeah, I had this problem when I added a lot of SIP register statements and SIP peers. Changing the hostnames (FQDNs) to IP addresses solved the

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Previous sip reload not yet done

2005-04-04 Thread Cirelle Internet Products
administrator tootai wrote: Olle E. Johansson a écrit : administrator tootai wrote: Nabeel Jafferali a écrit : Does anyone else have this problem? Is there a workaround? Yeah, I had this problem when I added a lot of SIP register statements and SIP peers. Changing the hostnames (FQDNs) to IP

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Previous sip reload not yet done

2005-04-04 Thread administrator tootai
[...] See this as a short time fix. We need to make a better solution on the REGISTER parsing to prevent this from happening, it's clearly a bug. Well noticed. Should I concider bugs #3850 and #3933 including this matter or should I open a new one? We had the same problem, on two different