[SR-Users] 480 Temporarily Unavailable

I get this error "480 Temporarily Unavailable" Every time I dial 206-456-1041 this is the information I have entered in the the filds: line 1Username: optimized72 Password: Freek101@ Proxy: iptel.org -- *l edslesdlesd.com * D

Re: [SR-Users] SDP body rewritten issue at RTPproxy

Hi, Why is your client sending so many sequential invites? voice IP and ports allocation seems ok. You should be taking trace on the client side to see if it is even sending media or not unless if you have just shared the SIP traces only. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ravi wrote: > Dear All

Re: [SR-Users] SDP body rewritten issue at RTPproxy

Dear All, Anybody please comment on this, with that i will be have some hints to solve my issue. Awaiting somebody's replies. Regards. Ravi -- View this message in context: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/SDP-body-rewritten-issue-at-RTPproxy-tp126759p126799.html Sent from the Users m

Re: [SR-Users] PERMISSIONS module issue

Hello, On 14/04/14 17:00, PIERRE Laurent wrote: Hi, Indeed, when we add a telephone number in the authorize file (default_allow_file) using permission module then we have to restart Kamailio. It's too bad for life system :( if you use allow/deny files, then you have to use allow_routing() or

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 21:15, Juha Heinanen wrote: Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: To get the branch attributes, the code should be similar to execution of failure_route. In failure_route, the attributes are taken from winning branch. In branch-failure, the attributes should be taken from current branch

[SR-Users] rls multipart body does not contain watcherinfo+xml

Hello Sirs, I'm trying to accomplish a rls subscribe but I have some miss-understandings regarding the multipart publish response that should come. I'm using the integrated xcap from the kamailio with all the xml files added. My problem is that event if I request a multipart containing application

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > To get the branch attributes, the code should be similar to execution of > failure_route. In failure_route, the attributes are taken from winning > branch. In branch-failure, the attributes should be taken from current > branch. But in both cases is dealing wi

[SR-Users] client provisioning.

Hello Everyone, Is possible do phone provisioning with kamailio ? Slava. ___ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Caller ID number being passed to Gateway

On Monday 14 April 2014 16:02:10 Joel E White wrote: > Thank you Daniel > > I will try this tonight. > BTW I just thought about the fact that is the username is empty in the from this doesn't work (there is no @ in those URI). I have 2 cases: $avp(from)=$fu; if($fU==$null) { avp_subst(

Re: [SR-Users] PERMISSIONS module issue

Hi, Indeed, when we add a telephone number in the authorize file (default_allow_file) using permission module then we have to restart Kamailio. It's too bad for life system :( Is it planned to improve in the next version ? Thanks -- Laurent PIERRE http://www.linkedin.com/in/lpierre -- O

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 15:18, Juha Heinanen wrote: daniel, what would it take to make append_branch() call in branch-failure route to re-create the branch of the corresponding branch route? is that currently possible by any means? if not, what new stuff would need to be introduced? I haven't had time to

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 15:11, Juha Heinanen wrote: Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: Flags needs to be re-sync'ed on the other hand: http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tmx.html#idp24432 could that function be used as a model to re-sync also other transaction attributes? If someone needs some

Re: [SR-Users] Caller ID number being passed to Gateway

Thank you Daniel I will try this tonight. On 4/14/2014 8:13 AM, Daniel Tryba wrote: Apr 10 09:19:22 siprouter-testbed kamailio[20171]: ERROR:

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

daniel, what would it take to make append_branch() call in branch-failure route to re-create the branch of the corresponding branch route? is that currently possible by any means? if not, what new stuff would need to be introduced? -- juha ___ SIP Ex

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Flags needs to be re-sync'ed on the other hand: > http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tmx.html#idp24432 could that function be used as a model to re-sync also other transaction attributes? on the other hand, we have been discussing here branch attri

Re: [SR-Users] PCSCF configuration towards pcrf

All, Is there a way I could check if IMS_qos is correctly loaded? Looking forward to your suggestions. thanks. From: Dees To: "sr-users@lists.sip-router.org" Sent: Sunday, 13 April 2014, 0:03 Subject: [SR-Users] PCSCF configuration towards pcrf Hi,   Very n

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 14:43, Alex Hermann wrote: On Monday 14 April 2014, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: Incoming request is stored in transaction with all the changes done in request_route until the transaction is created. A matter of what was the r-uri at the moment of creating transaction, you will r

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On Monday 14 April 2014, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Incoming request is stored in transaction with all the changes done in > request_route until the transaction is created. A matter of what was the > r-uri at the moment of creating transaction, you will retrieve it in the > tm specific routi

Re: [SR-Users] Caller ID number being passed to Gateway

> Apr 10 09:19:22 siprouter-testbed kamailio[20171]: ERROR:

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > The fix (or a new option to run if the current behavior was wanted by > developer) is to run branch-failure with the attributes from outgoing > request of the branch (not the incoming request, as it is now). i got it now. in my opinion, attributes of branch-f

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 11:59, Juha Heinanen wrote: i called t_newtran() also when request came from proxy itself and after that $ru was aor, not contact uri, in branch-failure route also during the second iteration. so somehow calling t_newtran() before t_relay() breaks branch-failure route. it would be n

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

i called t_newtran() also when request came from proxy itself and after that $ru was aor, not contact uri, in branch-failure route also during the second iteration. so somehow calling t_newtran() before t_relay() breaks branch-failure route. it would be nice to get it fixed. -- juha ___

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Print $ru before the function that creates the transaction (t_relay() or > t_newtran() in config) and see if they are the same for the two cases. > If yes, then you have to look inside tm code for this event route -- I > am not the developer of this features,

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 10:50, Juha Heinanen wrote: Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: Incoming request is stored in transaction with all the changes done in request_route until the transaction is created. A matter of what was the r-uri at the moment of creating transaction, you will retrieve it in the tm s

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > Incoming request is stored in transaction with all the changes done in > request_route until the transaction is created. A matter of what was the > r-uri at the moment of creating transaction, you will retrieve it in the > tm specific routing blocks when such

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

On 14/04/14 10:35, Juha Heinanen wrote: Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: I guess the event route is executed with the incoming request. I would expect to have there the branch attributes, but I haven't developed the feature. it would be important to get access to branch attributes in branch-fa

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > I guess the event route is executed with the incoming request. I would > expect to have there the branch attributes, but I haven't developed the > feature. it would be important to get access to branch attributes in branch-failure event route so that when appe

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[tm:branch-failure] question

I guess the event route is executed with the incoming request. I would expect to have there the branch attributes, but I haven't developed the feature. Perhaps you should look inside tm module at execution of branch route/failure route to see how they take the branch attributes and compare, t