I do not know the currant status of Polycom. some time ago they
implemented BLA
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/pua_bla.html
But BLA is crappy, and e.g. SNOM supports RFC 4235.
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/presence_dialoginfo.html
regards
klaus
Daniel Corbe schrieb:
Daniel,
I'm wondering if the patch you supplied wich solved my fr_inv_timer problem
(thanks for that) is due to a bug or is caused by something in my
configuration?
Regards
Hans
- Original Message -
From: h...@onsmail.nl
To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com
Cc:
Hello,
just a short reminder for those willing to discuss in real time the
status of project and immediate future for kamailio and ser: join
#sip-router irc channel, today at 14:00 gmt.
Feel free to add topics at:
https://sip-router.org/wiki/devel/irc-meetings/2009-07-07
Cheers,
Daniel
On
Hello,
On 07/07/2009 11:51 AM, h...@onsmail.nl wrote:
Daniel,
I'm wondering if the patch you supplied wich solved my fr_inv_timer
problem (thanks for that) is due to a bug or is caused by something in
my configuration?
I need to investigate a bit more, as I get contradictory reports. Some
Hello,
On 07/06/2009 09:25 PM, Uriel Rozenbaum wrote:
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how can I implement a proxy with Kamailio that can
manage privacy and normalization of the calling party.
In an INVITE message I can get the calling party name (or number) in
several places:
1. From Header
2.
On Montag, 6. Juli 2009, Alex Balashov wrote:
[..]
This seems fair enough, but it doesn't adequately explain who sip-router
is intended for and who Kamailio is intended for, and who should use which
and why and under what circumstances. It does also seem that most of the
development and
On 07/07/2009 12:41 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 07/07/2009 12:14 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
According to the Kamailio 1.5.x docs, force_rtp_proxy() is
deprecated and rtpproxy_offer() and rtpproxy_answer() should be used
instead.
Does that mean
2009/7/6 Alex Balashov abalas...@evaristesys.com:
According to the 1.5.x docs, force_rtp_proxy() is deprecated and
rtpproxy_offer() and rtpproxy_answer() should be used instead.
Does that mean unforce_rtp_proxy() is also deprecated?
I don't understand it. I expect that unforce_rtp_proxy() is
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
cc-ed the k users list, just in case someone pops up a better idea.
Having to invoke rtpproxy in each message (initial INVITE, reply,
ACK?, re-INVITE...) makes the config file really ugly.
While it provides flexibility (using different flags
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
2009/7/6 Alex Balashov abalas...@evaristesys.com:
According to the 1.5.x docs, force_rtp_proxy() is deprecated and
rtpproxy_offer() and rtpproxy_answer() should be used instead.
Does that mean unforce_rtp_proxy() is also deprecated?
I don't understand it. I
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
cc-ed the k users list, just in case someone pops up a better idea.
Having to invoke rtpproxy in each message (initial INVITE, reply,
ACK?, re-INVITE...) makes the config file really ugly.
While it provides
Hi
I recently read the following in order to optimize OpenSER in handling
TCP connections:
First, the TCP supervisor process must be given an elevated priority
level in order to prevent anomalous behavior due to the Linux
scheduler.
First of all, as this is quite old paper (it refers to OpenSER
Hello,
On 07/07/2009 02:51 PM, Pascal Maugeri wrote:
Hi
I recently read the following in order to optimize OpenSER in handling
TCP connections:
First, the TCP supervisor process must be given an elevated priority
level in order to prevent anomalous behavior due to the Linux
scheduler.
First
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Daniel-Constantin
Mierlamico...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On 07/07/2009 02:51 PM, Pascal Maugeri wrote:
Hi
I recently read the following in order to optimize OpenSER in handling
TCP connections:
First, the TCP supervisor process must be given an elevated
2009/7/7 Klaus Darilion klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at:
If would be really great a rtpproxy function working for transaction
(instead of working for each message). For example:
if (is_method(INVITE)) {
tran_use_rtpproxy(FLAGS);
}
In this case you can use mediaproxy or someone have to
On 07/07/2009 03:19 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Klaus Darilion klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at:
If would be really great a rtpproxy function working for transaction
(instead of working for each message). For example:
if (is_method(INVITE)) {
tran_use_rtpproxy(FLAGS);
}
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
No, I don't want it based on dialog module
I second this one, it will add pretty much overload.
However, it can be very simple, even without tm support. If calling like
rtpproxy_session_init() adds a nat=yes in the Record-Route, all
Hello Inaki,
On 07/07/2009 03:42 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
No, I don't want it based on dialog module
I second this one, it will add pretty much overload.
However, it can be very simple, even without tm support. If calling
On Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
[..]
I propose Tuesday, July 7, 2009, we can adjust to fit the best for the
people that want to attend. I started a wiki page, feel free to add there:
https://sip-router.org/wiki/devel/irc-meetings/2009-07-07
Hi all,
the minutes of
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions
should be exposed in the nathelper module. Why does mediaproxy get its
own module? What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than
far-end NAT traversal (for example, passive in-line tap / monitor-port
based call
On Dienstag, 7. Juli 2009, Alex Balashov wrote:
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions
should be exposed in the nathelper module. Why does mediaproxy get its
own module? What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than
far-end NAT traversal (for
2009/7/7 Henning Westerholt henning.westerh...@1und1.de:
if i remember correctly one of the original ideas behind the nat-traversal
module was to consolidate the helper functionality needed to support nat
traversal into one module, instead of having two more or less redundant
implementations
2009/7/7 Alex Balashov abalas...@evaristesys.com:
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions should
be exposed in the nathelper module. Why does mediaproxy get its own module?
What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than far-end NAT
traversal (for
On 07/07/2009 06:36 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions
should be exposed in the nathelper module.
maybe there was some misunderstanding. What we discussed here is not
when to use rtpproxy, but if you do it for initial invite, then
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Alex Balashov abalas...@evaristesys.com:
I somewhat object to the idea that rtpproxy control socket functions should
be exposed in the nathelper module. Why does mediaproxy get its own module?
What if I want to relay media for some purpose other than far-end
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
I use nat-traversal module and it's MUCH MUCH more powerful than
nathelper, for sure.
I do not agree at all with this, when comes to flexibility. nat_traversal
main problem is the relying on dialog module, which adds lot of overhead to
a
On 07/07/2009 07:27 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
I use nat-traversal module and it's MUCH MUCH more powerful than
nathelper, for sure.
I do not agree at all with this, when comes to flexibility. nat_traversal
main problem is the
El Martes, 7 de Julio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
On 07/07/2009 07:27 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
I use nat-traversal module and it's MUCH MUCH more powerful than
nathelper, for sure.
I do not agree at all with this,
On 07/07/2009 08:33 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Martes, 7 de Julio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
On 07/07/2009 07:27 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/7/7 Daniel-Constantin Mierla mico...@gmail.com:
I use nat-traversal module and it's MUCH MUCH more
First of all, I love these kind of discussions, the best way to learn :)
El Martes, 7 de Julio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
REGISTER - called before save_location() or t_relay() (depending on
whether the proxy that received the REGISTER is also handling
On 07/07/2009 10:30 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
First of all, I love these kind of discussions, the best way to learn :)
:-)
[...]
Ok, I get you now.
However, if you don't use db_mode=0 in usrloc, then there is a MySQL query
retrieving the natted contacts from usrloc table.
This
if you are concerned about TCP performance (Which may be a justified
concern -- from any possible viewpoint TCP is not easy for SIP),
I suggest you consider the sip-router core. There has been (and I think
still will be) tremendous effort put in it.
-jiri
Pascal Maugeri wrote:
Hi
I recently
32 matches
Mail list logo
