On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Huijun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Christopher Parfitt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry I did set the sipxproxy to DEBUG but I had to restart sipxpbx >> mannually as it did not "take" >> >> Here is the DEBUG sipxproxy log >> >> >> C. >> > >> I see the same problem as I was having. The PAI header makes > FreeSWITCH send out a challenge response. I dont know > > whether an > external issue is appropriate for this case or we can remove PAI for all > "in-domain" routing (not bound for a > gateway). Opinions solicited > ..... > > I think the reason to have PAI at the first place is try to comply with > SIP Connect. If we have PAI only for "in-domain" routing, but bound for > gateway, then we will fail that initiative...
Not really. The sipxrbidge can add the PAI in this case when it notices an outbund request with [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( I do that already so I can get past AT&T testing). However it would probably be best if the proxy did it correctly and so that it can be used in a more general way. Thanks I think we should have UA, > which interfaces with Freeswitch to respond to the challenge. There is > nothing stopping the UA from responding to the request. > > > Cheers > Huijun > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
