Hi Klaus, thank you for siptapi I tested SIPTAPI 0.2.6 it on SIPX 4.01 and it works nicely for me. Is there a version of siptapi available for windows 64 bit systems?
Thank you, Heros -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Klaus Darilion [mailto:[email protected]] Inviato: martedì 9 giugno 2009 15.41 A: Tony Graziano Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Oggetto: Re: [sipx-users] SIP TAPI no longer working? Sorry for picking up that old thread. I have reviewed SIPTAPI (I am the author) and recent SIPTAPI version 0.2.6 should handle authentication of REFER correct. Maybe someone can try again with SIPTAPI 0.2.6. thanks klaus Tony Graziano schrieb: > It does use those credentials. It broke in 3.8. > > I think the message length is the issue. Something in the proxy since > 3.4 or 3.6 has changed the length being returned, resulting in no invite > being sent. > > ====BEGIN LOG=== > "2008-04-07T18:55:56.289265Z":30:SIP:WARNING:pbx.mydomain.com:SipRouter-11:B 6EDBB90:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send > INVITE request matches existing transaction" > "2008-04-07T18:55:56.302416Z":31:SIP:WARNING:pbx.mydomain.com:SipRouter-11:B 6EDBB90:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send > INVITE request matches existing transaction" > "2008-04-07T18:55:56.315785Z":32:SIP:WARNING:pbx.mydomain.com:SipRouter-11:B 6EDBB90:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send > INVITE request matches existing transaction" > "2008-04-07T18:55:56.330127Z":33:SIP:WARNING:pbx.mydomain.com:SipRouter-11:B 6EDBB90:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send > INVITE request matches existing transaction" > "2008-04-07T18:55:56.338035Z":34:HTTP:WARNING:pbx.mydomain.com:SipClientUdp- 8:B7A5CB90:SipXProxy:"HttpMessage::getBytes > content-length: 227 wrong setting to: 0" > ===END LOG=== > > The last line is the most telling: > > "2008-04-07T18:55:56.338035Z":34:HTTP:WARNING:pbx.mydomain.com:SipClientUdp- 8:B7A5CB90:SipXProxy:"HttpMessage::getBytes > content-length: 227 wrong setting to: 0" > > This is more likely due to a cpp code change to handle a memory or sipx > constraint and was set a "0"? So just to let you know, sipxtapi is a TSP > used by many sip systems and it does include credentials and so froth. > It matches the transaction and it exists. The issue is in the http > message length returned from the proxy. > > As such, the wiki probably needs to state it is no longer functional > after 3.6 anyway. There's an assumption that if you follow-the-wiki it > should work, when it obviously does not maybe an update is warranted? > Right now this is not functional and if noone wants to look at it then > maybe someone can update the wiki and say "not working since 3.6"? > > http://sipx-wiki.calivia.com/index.php/Click-to-Dial_for_Outlook%2C_CardScan %2C_ACT!_using_SIP_TAPI > > > >>>> "Robert Joly" <[email protected]> 04/07/08 18:23 PM >>> > Gents, > I'm not a SIP TAPI user however I know that it does rely on REFER > messages. The handling of REFERs has changed in sipXecs 3.10 so that > REFERs without Replaces headers are challenged by the proxy (see > XECS-401 for grueling details) and I suspect that this is what is > causing trouble. Unless SIP TAPI has valid credentials to respond to a > challenged REFER, the call will fail. If you can take a network trace > using a tool like wireshark of the failing call, look for 407 - Proxy > Authentication Required messages. > > Cheers, > bob > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Tony Graziano >> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:44 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] SIP TAPI no longer working? >> >> Hi Dale, >> >> Thanks for the response. This is not sipxtapi. >> >> http://sipx-wiki.calivia.com/index.php/Click-to-Dial_for_Outlo > ok%2C_CardScan%2C_ACT%21_using_SIP_TAPI >> This is a TSP for SIP based systems. Works on pbxnsip, >> asterisk and a host of thers too. Used to work on sipx, >> though I suspect something in either the proxy or the cpp >> code for the http headers has changed that alter the expected >> value from whatever was sent to "0". This is why I sent the >> debugs in since I had captured the onformation. >> >> Where would I ask about this in sipxecs? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tony >> >>>>> Dale Worley <[email protected]> 04/07/08 17:28 PM >>> >> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 13:47 -0600, Porier, Jeremy M. wrote: >>> I haven't had time to troubleshoot it but it isn't working for us >>> either. >> You should probably ask on the sipx-tapi mailing list. >> >> Dale >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users >> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
