Steve Underwood wrote:
> Spandsp doesn't support those features. I don't know anything which
> does. It seems they can only be used with TCP. Spandsp does support
>
> T38FaxFillBitRemoval
>
> which the FAX for Asterisk package does not (according to Commetrex).
I added indication of T38FaxTran
- "Kevin P. Fleming" escreveu:
> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
>
> > I've put it on pastebin because is was a lot of text. Here's the
> link: http://pastebin.com/m7467cea1. That's all the information on the
> CLI with verbose=3 and "sip set debug peer voxip".
>
> OK, with the complete capture we
On 02/03/2010 03:14 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Steve Underwood wrote:
>
>
>> I wonder why Asterisk would say:
>>
>> X-asterisk-Info: SIP re-invite (External RTP bridge)
>> Content-Type: application/sdp
>> Content-Length: 344
>>
>> v=0
>> o=root 44350963 44350964 IN IP4 10.153.66.146
>> s=Ast
Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> I've put it on pastebin because is was a lot of text. Here's the link:
> http://pastebin.com/m7467cea1. That's all the information on the CLI with
> verbose=3 and "sip set debug peer voxip".
OK, with the complete capture we can see that the problem is actually
quite di
- "Steve Underwood" escreveu:
> On 02/03/2010 12:45 AM, Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> > - "Kevin P. Fleming" escreveu:
> >
> >
> >> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I couldn't agree more Steve.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any other info I could provide in order to help you find
> >>>
Steve Underwood wrote:
> I wonder why Asterisk would say:
>
> X-asterisk-Info: SIP re-invite (External RTP bridge)
> Content-Type: application/sdp
> Content-Length: 344
>
> v=0
> o=root 44350963 44350964 IN IP4 10.153.66.146
> s=Asterisk PBX 1.6.1.13
> c=IN IP4 10.153.66.146
> t=0 0
> m=image 48
On 02/03/2010 12:45 AM, Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> - "Kevin P. Fleming" escreveu:
>
>
>> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I couldn't agree more Steve.
>>>
>>> Is there any other info I could provide in order to help you find
>>>
>> out what's wrong? I could even open an issue o
- "Vinícius Fontes" escreveu:
> - "Kevin P. Fleming" escreveu:
>
> > Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't agree more Steve.
> > >
> > > Is there any other info I could provide in order to help you find
> > out what's wrong? I could even open an issue on Mantis if the
> Digium
>
- "Kevin P. Fleming" escreveu:
> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
>
> > I couldn't agree more Steve.
> >
> > Is there any other info I could provide in order to help you find
> out what's wrong? I could even open an issue on Mantis if the Digium
> staff think it's worth it.
>
> Post a 'sip set debug
Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> I couldn't agree more Steve.
>
> Is there any other info I could provide in order to help you find out what's
> wrong? I could even open an issue on Mantis if the Digium staff think it's
> worth it.
Post a 'sip set debug' capture of the failing call in this thread; tha
- "Steve Underwood" escreveu:
> On 02/02/2010 10:11 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > Steve Underwood wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kevin,
> >>
> >> On 02/02/2010 09:12 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]:
Steve Underwood wrote:
> That's how T.38 calls normally start. They mostly start as audio, and
> switch into T.38 mode later. We have only seen an initial fragment in
> the log. We haven't seen anything that's actually wrong. We see an offer
> to do telephony events, and from there things might
On 02/02/2010 10:11 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Steve Underwood wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 02/02/2010 09:12 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>>
>>> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
[Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 process_sdp: Processing
session-level
Steve Underwood wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 02/02/2010 09:12 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 process_sdp: Processing
>>> session-level SDP v=0... UNSUPPORTED.
>>> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 proc
Hi Kevin,
On 02/02/2010 09:12 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Vinícius Fontes wrote:
>
>
>> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 process_sdp: Processing
>> session-level SDP v=0... UNSUPPORTED.
>> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 process_sdp: Processing
>> session-lev
Vinícius Fontes wrote:
> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 process_sdp: Processing
> session-level SDP v=0... UNSUPPORTED.
> [Feb 2 08:38:06] DEBUG[21032]: chan_sip.c:7589 process_sdp: Processing
> session-level SDP o=PVG 1265107000170 1265107000170 IN IP4 10.152.0.164...
> UNSUP
Hello everyone.
I'm struggling to get T.38 faxing to work in Asterisk 1.6.1.13 with a SIP DID
provider here in Brazil (GVT - Vox IP service). Here's my scenario:
When faxes arrive by a specific DID, they are routed thru this simple macro:
[macro-recebefax]
exten => s,1,Set(DB(fax/count)=$[${DB
17 matches
Mail list logo