On 04/24/2010 04:49 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nKh8bg3eHo
That one is one of the best ones made.
But it'd be hilarious if someone really made one about Kamailio, LOL.
"Mein Führer, OpenSIPS has crossed the river here, here, and here..."
Joe Hart at my comp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nKh8bg3eHo
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
> But I don't see how to set in the gw table that such gateway is
> disabled. Is it possible?
not in 1.2. in 1.5 there is a polling based disable capability that is
replace in 3.0 by script controlled disable capability. also, it is
possible in 3.0 to manually di
Hi, I need to add LCR support to an existing OpenSer 1.2 server (not
possible to upgrade it for now).
I've realized that 1.2 doesn't include gateways monitorize feature.
Ok, I can do the check with an external tool, but I would like some
way to dissable such gw from the LCR module, something like u
2010/4/24 Alex Balashov :
> I read that, but was curious about the larger picture; why do you need the
> transparent proxy/B2BUA?
It's the accounting softswitch in my company. All the SIP calls to the
PSTN must go through it, even if the destination number is also a
local SIP client.
So, it could
On 04/24/2010 09:01 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/4/24 Alex Balashov:
Iñaki,
I would be curious to know what practical circumstances demand such a
convoluted topology.
Hi, please read the mail I've sent right now in this thread, it
explains the exact case I suffer. All occurs due to a bu
2010/4/24 Alex Balashov :
> Iñaki,
>
> I would be curious to know what practical circumstances demand such a
> convoluted topology.
Hi, please read the mail I've sent right now in this thread, it
explains the exact case I suffer. All occurs due to a buggy
transparent SIP proxy (a B2BUA in fact) wh
2010/4/24 Juha Heinanen :
> Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
>
> > If these rtpproxy use the same IP as the Kamailio's SIP signalling IP,
> > then there is no problem and no need to use "-r" flag.
>
> inaki,
>
> does it work in the common case where there is two sip proxys and two
> rtpproxies belongin
Iñaki,
I would be curious to know what practical circumstances demand such a
convoluted topology.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
1170 Peachtree Street
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Fax: +1-404-961-1892
On Apr 24, 2010, at 5:48 AM, Iñaki Baz
Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
> If these rtpproxy use the same IP as the Kamailio's SIP signalling IP,
> then there is no problem and no need to use "-r" flag.
inaki,
does it work in the common case where there is two sip proxys and two
rtpproxies belonging to two organizations that don't have an
2010/4/24 Andreas Heise :
>
> Hello Iñaki,
>
> did you fixed your issue? I'll also connect an OmniPCX pbx which maintain
> the session
> after forward / transfer and would be interested in a working config example
> for the
> SR/RTPproxy part. OmniPCX SIP config is clear as it's my daily business ;
2010/4/24 Juha Heinanen :
> Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
>
>> 1.6.4. force_rtp_proxy([flags [, ip_address]])
> >
> > -r flags that IP address in SDP should be trusted. Without this
> > flag, nathelper
> > ignores address in the SDP and uses source address of the
> > SIP message
Hello Iñaki,
did you fixed your issue? I'll also connect an OmniPCX pbx which maintain
the session
after forward / transfer and would be interested in a working config example
for the
SR/RTPproxy part. OmniPCX SIP config is clear as it's my daily business ;-)
thanks in advance,
Andreas
2010/2/26
Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
> 1.6.4. force_rtp_proxy([flags [, ip_address]])
>
> -r flags that IP address in SDP should be trusted. Without this
> flag, nathelper
> ignores address in the SDP and uses source address of the
> SIP message
> as media address which i
14 matches
Mail list logo
