On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 11:27 -0400, Andy Spitzer wrote: > > I disagree. The idea solution would be to allow sipXrelay to start > even if it cannot get STUN. It should continue to try to get STUN > periodically, and alarm if it cannot after some period (and alarm > again when it actually gets an answer, and alarm again if it loses it > again). That gets rid of the dependency problem yet still allows > sipXrelay to be started before sipXproxy. > > Using sipXsupervisor as a retry mechanism...I don't like it.
+2 _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
