18 Sep
2005
18 Sep
'05
5:14 p.m.
Hey
I have tested Quintum..Analog and Digital both...Digital has no issues now
while Analog boxes give you pain. Talk to Quintum...these guys are real nice
to respond.
From: "Neill Wilkinson"
<neill.wilkinson(a)btinternet.com>
To: "'Rick Thompson'"
<rthompson(a)vir2com.com>,"'Iqbal'"
<iqbal(a)gigo.co.uk>,"'Klaus Darilion'"
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>
CC: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] From header
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:29:24 +0100
Got Quntum Asterisk and SER working together happily - ASM200, AXM800, CMS.
Happy to share. Been a real pain making calls work and the Quintum Failover
too. But all hanging together for my service.
Neill....;o)
Neill Wilkinson
Senior Consultant
Quortex Consultants Ltd
e: neill.wilkinson(a)quortex.com
w: www.quortex.com
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Rick Thompson
Sent: 06 September 2005 18:59
To: 'Iqbal'; 'Klaus Darilion'
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] From header
Interesting. I have a number of Quintum PSTN gateways that I'm trying to
pass traffic through using SER and I am having a heck of a time with the
configuration. Asterisk works fine but not scaleable enough. My UAC's are
behind different NAT routers and some work with rtpproxy and some don't.
Some work (Linksys) with just nathelper but wouldn't work with rtpproxy.
Does anyone have a good experience with SER and Quintum? I would like to
share info and experience.
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Iqbal
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:28 PM
To: Klaus Darilion
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] From header
its REGISTER to the proxy
Iqbal
Klaus Darilion wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Win 5 Gold Coins & prizes worth Lakhs on eBay.
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/4686-26272-10936-630?ck=GoldRush Register
Now!
If the quinntum box is not registered to a proxy,
but a "standalone"
SIP device, than it is fine for the box to use its IP address (as this
is the SIP URI where it can be reached from outside).
klaus
Iqbal wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0537-1, 14/09/2005
Tested on: 18/09/2005 12:29:25
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers just what I thought, so basically the proxy FQDN
of the proxy the UA
is attached to, which is why I am wondering why quintum sends it own
IP address
Iqbal
Klaus Darilion wrote:
.
The From: header should contain the AoR (the
canonical sip URI, the
public known SIP URI), e.g: klaus3002(a)iptel.org
regards
klaus
Iqbal wrote:
> Hi
>
> The From request in REGISTER and INVITE, what should be in the
> domain segment of it, should it be, the IP address of the UA, the
> proxy or what, I seem to be getting conflicting results with a
> quintum, and wanted to double check
>
> Iqbal
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
.