Re: [SR-Users] Does Kamailio support RFC4117?

Hi Alex, Thanks for your quickly response! I will try another way to do this. Thanks and Best Regards, Charlie -Original Message- From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.kamailio.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: 2017年11月27日 13:44 To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List

Re: [SR-Users] Does Kamailio support RFC4117?

Hello Charlie, Since Kamailio simply relays SDP between UAs, it does nothing to either advance or hinder the use of 3PCC-style negotiation. -- Alex On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:40:26AM +, Ye, Charlie (NSB - CN/Qingdao) wrote: > Hi Friends, > > Does Kamailio support RFC4117? Do you have any

[SR-Users] Does Kamailio support RFC4117?

Hi Friends, Does Kamailio support RFC4117? Do you have any suggestions if I want support RFC4117 through Kamailio? Thanks and Best Regards, Charlie ___ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher with kam & fs behind nat

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:28:26AM -0500, Daniel Greenwald wrote: > Cool! Thanks for the fast and thorough response. I will try this out. You're very welcome! > Would TCP not work the same way, if I omit udp? Indeed it should. A common approach is to use TCP at the customer access edge and

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher with kam & fs behind nat

Cool! Thanks for the fast and thorough response. I will try this out. Would TCP not work the same way, if I omit udp? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:00:10AM -0500, Daniel Greenwald wrote: > > > Should Kam put two

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher with kam & fs behind nat

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:00:10AM -0500, Daniel Greenwald wrote: > Should Kam put two record-route headers on, one with PUBLICIP and one > with PRIVATEIP? How is this accomplished? Yep, you're exactly on the right track. For purposes of this discussion, 10.0.0.1 is the internal IP (and also

[SR-Users] Dispatcher with kam & fs behind nat

Dispatcher is sending inbound calls to Freeswitch boxes. Both the FS boxes and Kam are behind the same nat. What is the correct way to pass calls to the FS boxes so that all SIP between FS & Kam use local IP's? Should Kam put two record-route headers on, one with PUBLICIP and one with PRIVATEIP?

Re: [SR-Users] max_contacts does not work as expected

I have tested it. These records are not actually expired. I even found a situation in which a user has 16 different records in the database with the same expiration time and the same received socket address. The records were not expired yet. Is this a bug? Can it lead the system to be attacked?