On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 13:53 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: > 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.
But this process failure could be caused by a transient network connection failure; that seems harsh. Granted, the supervisor will keep trying... _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
