10 Jul
2007
10 Jul
'07
1:13 p.m.
At 16:19 09/07/2007, Charles Ulrich wrote:
Indeed it cannot. You have to use rtp-proxy in addition to SER -- SER
does only signaling, rtp-proxy fixes media.
-jiri
On Friday 06 July 2007 04:41, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
perhaps you are using Asterisk in H.323 mode? Messages from asterisk,
as long as in SIP mode, follow the same protocol as SER does...
Hi Charles,
Is the 'voip edition' somewhere available? I would be eager to give
it a try on my WRT too.
Sure. There's no direct link, so you have to click through the following
trail of links:
* Go to www.dd-wrt.com
* Downloads
* stable
* dd-wrt.v23 SP2
* voip
* dd-wrt.v23_voip.bin
Use this if you have a WRT54Gv4 or WRT54GL, otherwise check the
documentation to find out which firmware image you need. DD-WRT works
on a couple of other router brands too, such as Buffalo, Belkin, and
ASUS.
I'm a bit sceptical how much we can do about
it, since the URIs are
part of the SIP protocol machinery and it is up to discretion of a
telephone implementation to show what it wants to show (there is no
standard for what a telephone shall display).
You mean SIP doesn't have some kind of caller ID header? When these
phones are registered directly with Asterisk, caller ID works exactly
like a legacy non-SIP phone: Only a name and a number (or extension)
appear on the display on an incoming call. Using SER as a proxy, we get
the SIP URI instead of simply the telephone number. IMO you are
then left with experimenting and changing SIP requests in
a way that increases the chance that the phone shows what you want to
be shown. There is no guarantee however it will work for all phones
in a consistent way.
If I were you, I would try appending P-asserted-identity or
Remote-Party-ID header fields with tel URIs (benefit: use of a header
field does not change request URI, which might have side effects
otherwise, and use of TEL URI eliminates the domain). If that does
not work, I would try to put TEL URI in request-URI.
I'll see what I can come up with but it looks like using SER as an
outbound proxy isn't quite solving the main issue (NAT traversal)
anyway. Thanks!
--
Charles Ulrich
Ideal Solution, LLC -- http://www.idealso.com
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/