On 10/22/12 9:37 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I am not sure anymore the reason of the debate here. Saving two optional
bytes which are not allocated if not used in a db varchar field?
it started because there is three different lengths of ip address field
in
On 10/24/12 9:02 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Richard Fuchs writes:
Obviously the DNS requests shouldn't happen in the first place.
exactly, that has been my point all the time. the patch that i proposed
is like aspirin until the real bug has been fixed.
Is the query type A or when dns for
I have a situation where a far end SIP provider doesn't behave properly
when sending 487 replies. The scenario is this:
I have a registered user calling into my kamailio which ,using lcr module,
routes the call to a SIP provider. When the caller Cancels the call, my
kamailio forwards the cancel
You better use t_reply(487, Cancelled) in a failure_route.
Adding a proper Via header might be a tricky task.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 10/25/12 11:43 AM, Vassilis Radis wrote:
I have a situation where a far end SIP provider doesn't behave
properly when sending 487 replies. The scenario is this:
I
Thanks a lot, it worked.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com
wrote:
You better use t_reply(487, Cancelled) in a failure_route.
Adding a proper Via header might be a tricky task.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 10/25/12 11:43 AM, Vassilis Radis wrote:
I have
Hello,
just remembered about this one ...
hmm, I would say now that the right method would be AUTH, not MSRP, but
as you pointed, in SIP and HTTP the method is the first token in
request. I guess you had no chance to test with some client or look at
specs to see if they clarify somehow.
In
Hi,
Sorry for hijacking this thread, but I've a similar but different
question which bugs me since a while :)
Is there a way in kamailio to statelessy forward a request without
putting its own Via header into the message? Consider an example where a
stateless load-balancer sends a request to a
Hi,
On 10/25/2012 02:51 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Is there a way in kamailio to statelessy forward a request without
putting its own Via header into the message? Consider an example where a
stateless load-balancer sends a request to a proxy A, which again
statelessy forwards it to another
On 24.10.2012 20:41, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Richard Fuchs writes:
this is not the real fix, but helps until someone figures out why dns
query on something that is not a name but wrongly formatted ipv6 address
is done in the first place.
What do you mean with wrongly formatted?
the ipv6
Thanks, now I remember again :-)
Please copy the whole description into the rtpproxy README.
Thanks
Klaus
On 22.10.2012 22:46, Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi,
On 10/22/2012 07:04 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Please ask Andreas about those flags - he commited it
It's actually about serial hunting
On 22.10.2012 09:50, Juha Heinanen wrote:
rtpproxy module readme gives impression that udp transport is the only
possibility:
4.1. rtpproxy_sock (string)
Definition of socket(s) used to connect to (a set) RTPProxy. It may
specify a UNIX socket or an IPv4/IPv6 UDP socket.
if that is the
Hello,
On 10/25/12 1:40 PM, Peter Dunkley wrote:
Hi,
I am doing some work on this module right now myself.
I did think of putting a bit of code into the auth module that, where
the method is selected, checks to see if the request is an MSRP one
and, if it is, selects the method using the
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
The better fix looking at the patch you proposed would be to use the
function that detects is valid ipv6, not just something starting with
'['.
this has nothing to with what is valid ipv6, but rather, how does a
valid domain name look like. domain name
Hi Kamal!
Are you familiar with SSL/TLS and certificates? With TLS the trust
between TLS server and TLS client is usually via a trusted certification
authority (CA). For example, if the intermediate proxy uses a
certificate which is issued by CA FOOBAR-XYZ, the you have to configure
Kamailio
On 19.10.2012 21:40, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
But in this case the call is completed, because negative response codes
are absorbed by tm, 200ok being sent back, so no need to destroy any rtp
session. iirc, for all branches of a parallel fork there is one rtp
Dear Klaus
The certificate verification I have disabled.
Facing a new problem.
When there is a connection reset, that time Kamailio is crashing.
During crash, I get below logs. Any idea why it is crashing and how can I
avoid it.
*oot@B2BUA:/usr/local/src/scripts# 9(9557) : core
i would like to add and when hostpart of r-uri is ipv4 address,
wireshark tells me that kamailio does NOT try to resolve it from dns,
but when hostpart is [ipv6 address] then (as i have shown earlier),
kamailio tries to resolve it.
if it would be possible to make treatment of ipv6 hostpart the
Klaus Darilion writes:
Is it really worth differing between nated and non-nated clients?
yes, because operator of sip proxy would save in hardware costs.
In my setup I always treat every user as natted user - this makes the
config much more simpler. But I haven't had projects with huge user
SIGABRT 6 CoreAbort signal from abort(3)
This means that there was an error condition detected in the Kamailio
code and the abort(3) function was called. As you see in the logs a core
file was generated. Find the core file and load it into gdb and execute
backtrace. It will
On Thursday 25 October 2012, Juha Heinanen wrote:
an ipv6 address can thus never be a valid domain name. an ipv4 address,
on the other hand, is syntactically valid domain name and perhaps
someone has populated their local name server with such names.
But the application (kamailio) should not
On 25.10.2012 16:27, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Klaus Darilion writes:
Is it really worth differing between nated and non-nated clients?
yes, because operator of sip proxy would save in hardware costs.
In my setup I always treat every user as natted user - this makes the
config much more
On 10/25/12 4:33 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2012, Juha Heinanen wrote:
an ipv6 address can thus never be a valid domain name. an ipv4 address,
on the other hand, is syntactically valid domain name and perhaps
someone has populated their local name server with such names.
On 10/25/2012 05:33 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2012, Juha Heinanen wrote:
an ipv6 address can thus never be a valid domain name. an ipv4 address,
on the other hand, is syntactically valid domain name and perhaps
someone has populated their local name server with such names.
On Thursday 25 October 2012, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 10/25/12 4:33 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2012, Juha Heinanen wrote:
an ipv6 address can thus never be a valid domain name. an ipv4 address,
on the other hand, is syntactically valid domain name and perhaps
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:08 +0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I would avoid to put lot of dependent code in auth -- maybe in the
future we need to refactor how msrp packets are presented or to auth
some other protocol. It should be easier to maintain just to pass the
relevant tokens from
After further testing it was found that setting the alias like this somehow
broke outgoing messages. I'm not certain exactly how Kamailio handles
aliases, but it seems like it is not as simple as I expected. I am working
on figuring out a new solution now if anyone has any thoughts.
Thanks,
Ed
26 matches
Mail list logo
