On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Scott Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
Is it appropriate to send an alarm if stun server does not work during configtest ? I assume ( based upon this discussion ) that failing configtest is not the right thing to do. > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > -- 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
