[SR-Users] kamailio 5.0 with asterisks

Hello! I'm new with kamailio, so may be don't understand some basic. I'm tryin to load balance asterisk servers with kamailio and dispatcher module. My ip phones registered at kamailio, for example: [root@sipchel ~]# kamctl ul show 101 { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": { "AoR": "101", "

Re: [SR-Users] Integration of Google Speech API V2

I have used this API to try prototype automatic transcription but not with Kamailio however since you are having trouble with the API and not Kamailio I can help you out even though this is unrelated to SR-users mailing list. You need to first get the API working on your own development computer

Re: [SR-Users] Problem with IPv4-IPv6 media bridging using RTPengine

On 19/07/17 08:31 AM, Ismir Saljic wrote: Hello, I've issue with bridging media between IPv4 and IPv6 clients. IPv4-IPv4 and IPv6-IPv6 calls are working without issues. I'm using kamailio 4.4.2 and configuration according to: http://kb.asipto.com/kamailio:kamailio-mixed-ipv4-ipv6

[SR-Users] xavp questions (variables in root/branch)

Hi, community! I have a question regarding xavp usage. according to docs, xavp has format: $xavp(root=>branch)="value"; I want to use "root" and "branch" - variables. (as it is implemented with AVPs - the id there, can be variable) e.g.: ... $var(root_key) = "root_1"; $var(branch_key1)

[SR-Users] Integration of Google Speech API V2

Hi, I'm trying to integrate Google cloud speech recognition v2 in it. I can get the audio recorded, have created Service key and API key but whenever I try to access it, I just get 403 access denied. I am at my wits end here. Has anybody tried it ? were you successful ? Could you please guide me

[SR-Users] Problem with IPv4-IPv6 media bridging using RTPengine

Hello, I've issue with bridging media between IPv4 and IPv6 clients. IPv4-IPv4 and IPv6-IPv6 calls are working without issues. I'm using kamailio 4.4.2 and configuration according to: http://kb.asipto.com/kamailio:kamailio-mixed-ipv4-ipv6 SIP signalling is working without issues,but media address

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Thanks for the info! On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Joel Serrano writes: > > > Just curious, in what version of Kamailio would this patch be > implemented? > > is the backport to previous versions automatic or do we have to manually > > apply and build? > > I think back

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Joel Serrano writes: > Just curious, in what version of Kamailio would this patch be implemented? > is the backport to previous versions automatic or do we have to manually > apply and build? I think backports are usually done on per need basis. So if you need this patch in some version earlier

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Just curious, in what version of Kamailio would this patch be implemented? is the backport to previous versions automatic or do we have to manually apply and build? Cheers, Joel. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel, > > After your patch, branch flags are now preserved

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel, After your patch, branch flags are now preserved to the second SRV destination. Thanks, -- Juha ___ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Sounded rather simple, so I did a quick search in the code and just > pushed a patch for it -- very small, but hopefully it fixes this. If all > tests are fine for you, then you can backport as needed to stable branches. Thanks, will test and backport. -- Juha

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 11:00, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > >> OK, so it is creating a new branch structure. That could explain why the >> branch flags from previous INVITE are not there. If it is only the >> branch flags missing (and the headers changes are already propagated),

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > OK, so it is creating a new branch structure. That could explain why the > branch flags from previous INVITE are not there. If it is only the > branch flags missing (and the headers changes are already propagated), I > expect to be an easy patch. I will look into

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 10:44, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > >> Is the branch parameter in the top Via of the second INVITE sent out >> different than for the first INVITE (last digit incremented by 1 or >> so)? > Thanks for your reply. Yes it is: > > In the first INVITE: > > Via

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Is the branch parameter in the top Via of the second INVITE sent out > different than for the first INVITE (last digit incremented by 1 or > so)? Thanks for your reply. Yes it is: In the first INVITE: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bKa049.25c648aa

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 10:23, Juha Heinanen wrote: > I did more some more tests. > > The branch route was properly executed before INVITE to the first SRV > destination was sent. The branch route set some headers, branch flags, > etc. After the first SRV destination failed, INVITE was sent to the > second

[SR-Users] dns failover and branches

I did more some more tests. The branch route was properly executed before INVITE to the first SRV destination was sent. The branch route set some headers, branch flags, etc. After the first SRV destination failed, INVITE was sent to the second SRV destination and the branch route was not re-exec

Re: [SR-Users] dns failover and branches

On 19.07.17 09:09, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Juha Heinanen writes: > >> If Request-URI hostpart is a domain name with more than one SRV record, >> it appears that each SRV destination creates its own Kamailio branch. >> If branch route is set before t_relay(), it is executed only on the >> first SRV d

[SR-Users] dns failover and branches

Juha Heinanen writes: > If Request-URI hostpart is a domain name with more than one SRV record, > it appears that each SRV destination creates its own Kamailio branch. > If branch route is set before t_relay(), it is executed only on the > first SRV destination. If the first SRV destination fails