Maybe it's your capture that is showing two packets.
Check at destination if two packets are received.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:30 AM, BERGANZ François
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could compare two frames and:
> There is one more same 'via'
No, because the reply may be processed by a different worker.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM, toly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Klaus,
>
> suppose to I wrote my own routing module. If the call originated from
> workerA, will failure route hit the sam
It seems that your call is completing because you have 200ok, so it's
not just 'trying' as you originally posted.
You will need to investigate the centile logs to see what's going on there.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:00 AM, BERGANZ François
<[EMAIL PR
Giving more details would help.
Are you in a NATed environment?
Post your ngrep trace here and maybe someone will be able to help you.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:24 AM, BERGANZ François
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
> I have
Kamailio is a signaling SIP proxy and it doesn't deal with media.
Fax negotiation belongs to the media endpoints.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
PS: BTW, detecting CNG as a fax tone is a bad habit. You need to
detect the V.21 tone for fax transmissions and if you have fax
machines dealing with v.34,
Hi Henning,
Yes, you are right :)
Since I'm not using this functionality ... it slipped out. Sorry for
the confusion ...
Yes, it would be good to document this in both 1.3, 1.4 and trunk.
Too much documentation doesn't hurt at all ;)
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:44 A
things to
check and fine tuning to perform before putting the system in
production. Especially for systems under high load.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Samael - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
>
> We realized that with 200 children t
our
transaction processing, then your server will be slow.
Check your config and see what's going 'wrong' there.
As a reference, openser is able to do 150 cps using a single child and
the CPU is barely utilized (on a slow machine).
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:31
Hmm ...
Can you post your config file here (or can you send it to me privately)?
I will take a look to see if I can found something there.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Jonathan K. Creasy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5-15 cps throughout the day, peaks aro
How many calls per second are you routing?
Are you doing something specific beside just routing calls via carrierroute?
Are you running any private modules?
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan K. Creasy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the assistance.
force_active is a parameter for 'presence_xml' module, not for 'presence':
modparam("presence_xml", "force_active", 1)
http://www.kamailio.net/docs/modules/1.4.x/presence_xml.html#id2452979
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Ricky G
Here's the basic config for carrierroute. You can start building on top of it.
It matches the version of openser that you are using.
http://voipembedded.com/resources/openser_cr.cfg
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Jonathan K. Creasy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
h doesn't seem to be related to carrierroute.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan K. Creasy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're using Carrier route with about 53,000 routes stored in a mysql databse.
> We're getting this crash in production th
I will check with Daniel about this.
In the mean time, here's the right link:
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.4.x/ratelimit
Thank you for pointing this out.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Alex Balashov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why does the
Once you know where you want to route the call, just ratelimit the
traffic based on you predefined pipes.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM, sergejf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From what I understand rl_check_pipe() will work on all *incoming* INVITE
> packets (
to use different domains for failure route. In the end, it is a
matter of populating the cr tables in order to properly control the
traffic.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM, sergejf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We're using OpenSER 1.3 so this should be
The config there is for openser 1.3. It needs to be upgraded to 1.4.
carrierroute seems to be the only module that had an API change,
everything else should be working as is.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:20 AM, sergejf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ovidiu,
>
I just remembered that long time ago I got tired about this question
and I built a simple sample config.
Here it is: http://voipembedded.com/resources/openser_cr.cfg
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Jeremy McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ovidiu
append_brach() is needed on failure_route(). This was discussed
several times on the mailing list.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Elena-Ramona Modroiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan K. Creasy wrote:
>> I have this block in my configuration:
Just call rl_check()/rl_check_pipe() to see if the imposed cps limit
was reached:
- if not, route the call normally;
- if yes, pick the next destination/carrier.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM, sergejf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are co
thing that you can try is to use a single listener. This
should preserve the message sequence as each reply will be handled by
the same process.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Ali Soltani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not getting any error messag
Also, from the sipp script, after how much time the 200ok is sent
after the 180 was sent?
Do you let any ring time at all in your script?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Henning Westerholt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, August 12, 2008 11:33 pm, Ali Soltani wrote:
>> I am analyzing a simple
Try textops subst() in branch_route.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Alex Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 August 2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> El Tuesday 12 August 2008 14:17:39 Alex Hermann escribió:
>> > REQUEST_ROUTE:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Lunes, 11 de Agosto de 2008, Kaeman Chris escribió:
>> Hello,
>>
>> What are the problems in production that can be encountered if the
>> fr_inv_timer is increased from 30-45 secs to 120 secs for a sip-sip call?
>>
> imho, we need to put this issue to bed and move on. its done..
I have to agree with Adam here :)
It's done. Move forward and spend time in testing and coding!
Cheers,
Ovidiu
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> On 11 Aug 2008, at 11:50, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> some peopl
bye bugs?
hmmm ... bugs are everywhere ...
you can't get rid of them ;)
cheers,
-ovidiu
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And for me as well as opensips and kamailo, I will stay to the original SER
> even if I thought to go to Openser...
> I cant belie
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Alex Balashov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ovidiu Sas wrote:
>
>> rtpproxy works very well with T.38 (the transport protocol for T.38 is
>> udptl built on top of udp just like rtp).
>
> I wasn't aware rtpproxy supported udptl. S
rtpproxy works very well with T.38 (the transport protocol for T.38 is
udptl built on top of udp just like rtp).
Jens, which version of rtpproxy do you use?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Alex Balashov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> T.38 is not RTP, so I am not sure why one would expect them to be
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
