On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:51 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Scott Lawrence > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 12:32 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Following some discussions on #sipx, I thought I should broadcast this >>> to a wider audience (especially those testing our system): >>> >>> - If you configure a bad stun server, configtest will fail. >>> - If you restart the system with a failed stun server, restart will >>> fail (on configtest). >>> - sipxrelay and sipxbridge will send out an alarm if the stun server >>> is detected as being down during operation and another alarm when the >>> stun server comes back up again ( this behavior is yet to be >>> implemented ). >> >> I don't think that configtest should fail - that prevents the service >> from starting. It would be better if the service started and fired the >> alarm then kept retrying until the stun server became accessible again. > > Without the public address, the service is useless. I need the > public address for call setup from sipxrelay and for sipxbridge I need > it for Contact address, I cannot do any registration or call setup. > > What does "started" mean if it cannot initialize? It can do nothing > sensible so there is no point in starting.
Oh I must add. The service will fail to start only if Behind NAT is checked and Use Stun is selected. > >> >>> Perhaps some day we can run our own high availability stun server ( or >>> set of stun servers ). >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Ranga >>> >> >> > > > > -- > M. Ranganathan > -- 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
