Re: [VoiceOps] Ideas for Building Inbound Redundancy

2017-02-07 Thread Alex Balashov
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 05:08:51PM -0500, Alex Balashov wrote: > Synchronising knowledge of "calls" among Kamailio installations is not > an especially challenging technical problem, but nor does it provide the > redundancy outcomes you may hope for. Kamailio will happily pass > in-dialog requests

Re: [VoiceOps] Ideas for Building Inbound Redundancy

2017-02-07 Thread Alex Balashov
Hello, On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:58:29PM -0500, Nick Olsen wrote: > Honestly, I haven't done a packet capture on it. But I don't think > it's technically a reinvite. The term "reinvite" refers to one kind of scenario and one kind only: an in-dialog SIP INVITE, as opposed to an initial SIP INVI

Re: [VoiceOps] Ideas for Building Inbound Redundancy

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Mundy
> On 8/02/2017, at 7:58 am, Nick Olsen wrote: > > Thanks for sharing your Config and thoughts with the community, It's given me > some Lab Ideas! +1! Thanks Markus, it was interesting to consider the config and it provided good food for thought :) Pete smime.p7s Description: S/MIME crypto

Re: [VoiceOps] Ideas for Building Inbound Redundancy

2017-02-07 Thread Nick Olsen
Markus, Thanks for the info! >I think that is it. I've also never seen it on inbound calls. >But in my scenario, wouldn't it be rather *my* endpoint that would send >the RE-INVITE? (for whatever reason) Since I don't have a need for >that, I just never worried about it. So far, It Just Works.