Thats still debatable The RFC's on these things read like chinese
stereo instructions.
/b
On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
> Brian,
>
> You've been vindicated. Callcentric is now advertising zero weighted
> SRV records! :)
>
> I've re-enabled SRV lookups for the Ca
Bkw, I would recommend charging a fee from callcentric for the
consultancy. This consultant thing can get you going someday! LOL
Jmesquita funny joke
On 8/28/09, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
> Brian,
>
> You've been vindicated. Callcentric is now advertising zero weighted SRV
> records! :)
>
> I've
Brian,
You've been vindicated. Callcentric is now advertising zero weighted SRV
records! :)
I've re-enabled SRV lookups for the Callcentric profile and will monitor
to see if I get any errors.
Carlos
Brian West wrote:
Or as I have argued today they should fix their SRV records to be zero
Read RFC 2782, About the significance of a 0 weight vs weighted. Ray
proved that if you have your records weighted at 0 it behaves correctly.
/b
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
> I am going to try to find an appropriate IETF mailing list to ask
> some questions about t
Raymond Chandler wrote:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Raymond Chandler wrote:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Hmm, where does it say that, after the lookup, one cannot use the same
IP address as before? :)
Section 4 of RFC3263 as quoted in my f
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Raymond Chandler wrote:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Hmm, where does it say that, after the lookup, one cannot use the
same
IP address as before? :)
Section 4 of RFC3263 as quoted in my first email
"The p
Raymond Chandler wrote:
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Hmm, where does it say that, after the lookup, one cannot use the same
IP address as before? :)
Section 4 of RFC3263 as quoted in my first email
"The procedures here MUST be done exactly once per transaction, wh
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Hmm, where does it say that, after the lookup, one cannot use the same
IP address as before? :)
Section 4 of RFC3263 as quoted in my first email
"The procedures here MUST be done exactly once per transaction, where
transaction is as d
Raymond Chandler wrote:
> Actually, disregard my previous mail... this patch probably wouldn't
> be gladly accepted... I seem to have forgotten about the part where
> the DNS SRV lookup "MUST be done once per transaction"
>
>
Hmm, where does it say that, after the lookup, one cannot use
Actually, disregard my previous mail... this patch probably wouldn't
be gladly accepted... I seem to have forgotten about the part where
the DNS SRV lookup "MUST be done once per transaction"
So if we don't do that, then we would be breaking spec. Just disabling
SRV on the profile to whi
Agreed. That being said, having a way to force Freeswitch to stick
to the same IP address in the middle of authorization/authentication
wouldn't violate any specs but would certainly make things easier
when dealing with not so well implemented round robin scenarios. Do
you think a new opt
Raymond Chandler wrote:
very true, but i've been reading over the RFCs on this, and it seems
that FreeSWITCH isn't doing anything incorrectly.
in RFC3263 (section 4), when talking about client usage of SRV:
The procedures here MUST be done exactly once per transaction, where transaction is as d
Or as I have argued today they should fix their SRV records to be zero
weighted.
/b
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Michael Jerris wrote:
> You can bypass the srv records if you like by passing a :port with the
> hostname where you use it in freeswitch.
_
You can bypass the srv records if you like by passing a :port with the
hostname where you use it in freeswitch.
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am using Callcentric for my tests and have observed what appears
> to me
> a possible bug in the way Freeswitch
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Carlos S. Antunes wrote:
Hello!
I am using Callcentric for my tests and have observed what appears
to me
a possible bug in the way Freeswitch handles DNS SRV records.
Callcentric uses DNS SRV records as a way to direct traffic to their
SIP
server. A 'srv' 'di
Hello!
I am using Callcentric for my tests and have observed what appears to me
a possible bug in the way Freeswitch handles DNS SRV records.
Callcentric uses DNS SRV records as a way to direct traffic to their SIP
server. A 'srv' 'dig' of '_sip._udp.callcentric.com' returns:
_sip._udp.callcen
16 matches
Mail list logo
