On 09/16/2010 04:15 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
>
>> Ok...I know that waiting 21 days is a long time to try this, but due to
>> students starting the new semester and everything that goes along with that,
>> I just got around to trying
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
> Ok...I know that waiting 21 days is a long time to try this, but due to
> students starting the new semester and everything that goes along with that,
> I just got around to trying this build. Sorry for the delay.
>
> Please take a look
On 08/26/2010 10:58 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Nieuwland Operations Centre
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Did you manage to build the package?
>>>
>> Yes, but my bandwidth is limited at the moment. I'
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Nieuwland Operations Centre
> wrote:
>> Did you manage to build the package?
>
> Yes, but my bandwidth is limited at the moment. I'll try again in the
> morning.
OK, i updated 4.2.1 release. I was confid
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Nieuwland Operations Centre
wrote:
> Did you manage to build the package?
Yes, but my bandwidth is limited at the moment. I'll try again in the morning.
Was there a bug entered for this? I didn't think so so i created one
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX
Perhaps, but I think she has a confirmed bug with an addition of PPI and
route to options in gateways, some of the data is not being placed in the
proper order of that build...
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Michael Scheidell <
michael.scheid...@secnap.com> wrote:
> On 8/18/10 11:38 AM, Heathe
On 8/18/10 11:38 AM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
Yes, and many, many other things.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but...Did you read the entire
thread? I have been pretty good about posting every step of my
troubleshooting...
my testing for 4.2.0 shows something strange when changing I
On 08/18/2010 12:18 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> In your case, you
> need PAI to be ITSP registration info and From to original caller.
> Did I get that right?
Yes. That is correct.
> Anyway, I'll have a fix maybe today but definitely this week. Heather
> can I give you an RPM to try before I pu
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
> The 'From' header info and the 'PAI' header info are flipped around in
> 4.2.1.
I found the offending code and only way to fix this for everyone is to
invent yet another setting to set the From header to a fixed value.
In my case setti
In callid-works, look at frame 5. This is from 4.2.0.
In callidpai, look at frame 8. That is 4.2.1.
See what I mean?
These had *identical* config files. In fact, the config file from 4.2.0
was a restore from 4.2.1.
On 08/18/2010 11:30 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:12
Yes, and many, many other things.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but...Did you read the entire
thread? I have been pretty good about posting every step of my
troubleshooting...
A re-install was an extreme last resort.
I did a full re-install back to 4.2.0, followed by a restore with t
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
> The ITSP requires that we send ${itsp-registration-...@${itsp-domain} .
Did you try on the ITSP page
Use default asserted identity: [ ] (< unchecked)
Asserted identity: any-userid-you-w...@any-domain-you-want
where
an
Rolling back to 4.2.0 (or re-install in my case) fixed the callerid
issues I have been seeing. Something changed from 4.2.0 to 4.2.1 that
broke callerid.
On 08/13/2010 03:38 PM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
> Sorry for the delay on answering this request...I get busy.
>
> I have attached the results
In the previous mail I was wrong...
I've tried using stunnel 4.26, 4.28 and 4.33, but the CDR HA Tunnel never
started.
So now I'm wondering about what to do...
Is the 4.2.1 release compatible with CentOS 5.2 or should I have to
upgrade the OS to a more recent version? If so, which version?
I've
Sorry for the delay on answering this request...I get busy.
I have attached the results. If you look at frame 6, you will see that
the 'From' header and the PAI header are the same when I disable the
default identity and fill in the information.
Interesting result, when compared to frame 8 of th
Sorry about that. Yes, the ITSP uses registration.
Heather L. Sanders
Linux Systems Administrator
Saginaw Valley State University
7400 Bay Road
374 Wickes Hall
University Center, MI 48710
Office: (989) 964-2156
Mobile: (989
This is what I think it should look like...
14:35:46.526192 00:0c:29:09:16:74 > 00:30:88:10:e5:cd, ethertype IPv4
(0x0800), length 1168: (tos 0x0, ttl 63, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto
UDP (17), length 1154)
69.34.33.146.5080 > 74.63.41.218.5060: [udp sum ok] SIP, length: 1126
INVITE
PAI is a trust thing within sip. It cant get passed more than one level i
think and some itsp's use it to perform a basic authentication of sorts. I
feel it is somewhat open and useless, but that's my opinion.
If you put {itsp-registration-...@${itsp-domain} in the default identity AND
disable it,
The ITSP requires that we send ${itsp-registration-...@${itsp-domain} .
I have attached the firewall pcap. If you look at frame 8 of this pcap,
you will see that the from header contains exactly that. However, what
is interesting...is that the PAI header contains my personalized
callerid infor
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
> I took your suggestion and ran a pcap at my firewall...I can see that my
> callerid info is in the PAI header. However, my ITSP requires that we use a
> valid PAI, so sending anonymous is 'not an option' for us with this ITSP.
it seem
I took your suggestion and ran a pcap at my firewall...I can see that my
callerid info is in the PAI header. However, my ITSP requires that we
use a valid PAI, so sending anonymous is 'not an option' for us with
this ITSP.
I will call the ITSP and see what I can work out.
Perhaps I should consid
If you have the ability to generate a pcap from your firewall on port 5060
and make a call, that would probably give you instant insight.
In my case, I did that and saw the gateway send "anonymous", which the ITSP
honored. When I removed the "default asserted identity" the outbound call
then showe
Thank you for the reply.
I have tried unchecking the box for default asserted identity. I have
tried checking the box. I did both of these things prior to sending a
message to this list...and forgot to add that to my list of things that
I have tried (frustration makes me forget to write things d
Undo what you have done and refer to this workaround...
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8647
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Heather L. Sanders wrote:
> Dear sipX users:
>
> Three days ago, I upgraded my system to 4.2.1-018930 build34, and since
> then, I have not been able to get my cal
24 matches
Mail list logo
