Thanks both, will do.
Mark.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 09:56, Vlad Patrascu wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> We are aware of this limitation with wolfssl, and do plan to address it
> somehow but we have not found a straight-forward solution yet. Keep an eye
> on the feature request Ovidiu mentioned.
>
>
Hi Mark,
We are aware of this limitation with wolfssl, and do plan to address it
somehow but we have not found a straight-forward solution yet. Keep an
eye on the feature request Ovidiu mentioned.
Regards,
--
Vlad Patrascu
OpenSIPS Core Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com
On
There is a feature request for it:
https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/issues/2736
-ovidiu
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:51 AM Mark Farmer wrote:
>
> Thanks Ovidiu, that is great information.
>
> I am using wolfssl as that seems to be the way to go these days.
> I wonder given the rising
Thanks Ovidiu, that is great information.
I am using wolfssl as that seems to be the way to go these days.
I wonder given the rising popularity of Direct Routing if it would be
possible/sensible to have wolfsssl populate the $tls_peer_subject_cn
variable in the future?
Mark.
On Fri, 25 Feb
With MS, you can authenticate based on $tls_peer_subject_cn. This
works ok with openssl but not with wolfssl. When wolfssl is using
session tickets to establish new connections, the $tls_peer_subject_cn
is not populated.
Another alternative is to perform a lookup for each request received
over a
Also thanks to Ovidiu for the helpful suggestion. I will remember that one
:)
Mark.
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 11:50, Mark Farmer wrote:
> Thanks Bogdan
>
> It's no secret really, I was just speaking generically.
> They are the MS Direct Routing domains, EG sip.pstnhub.microsoft.com
>
> Mark.
>
>
Thanks Bogdan
It's no secret really, I was just speaking generically.
They are the MS Direct Routing domains, EG sip.pstnhub.microsoft.com
Mark.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 12:50, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> You say the DNS is publishing only one IP for the domain, but one may
>
+1 , good point Ovidiu !!
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS eBootcamp
https://www.opensips.org/Training/Bootcamp
On 2/22/22 3:58 PM, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
Hi Mark,
Take a look at the ds_list mi command. Under resolved_addresses you
Hi Mark,
Take a look at the ds_list mi command. Under resolved_addresses you
should see which IPs and ports are used for matching the given FQDN.
This should help in troubleshooting your issue.
-ovidiu
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:57 AM Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> If a gw is
Hi Mark,
You say the DNS is publishing only one IP for the domain, but one may
change ? If you want, you can PM me the actual domain to see how the DNS
records looks like.
Regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS eBootcamp
Hi Bogdan
The GW's have 2 CNAME records which I have no control over. DR has entries
like subdomain.example.com:5061
I suspect the issue arises when the CNAMES swap around resulting in a
mismatch.
Currently I am using this to identify the source of the message which is
probably not the best in
Hi Mark,
If a gw is defined via FQDN, that will by DNS resolved (NAPTR, SRV, A
records) when DB data is (re)loaded by DR module, and used later for
such checks. All found IPs (from DNS) will be stored on the GW.
How do you specify the GW address in DB and what kind of DNS records do
you
Hi everyone
I am using is_from_gw() to match against a group of gateways specified by
DNS names which resolve to multiple IP addresses but it seems to be failing
to match.
Is this supported functionality or do I need to do something else in this
case?
Thanks and regards
Mark.
13 matches
Mail list logo
