8 Sep
2005
8 Sep
'05
7:05 p.m.
Greger,
Thanks again for the response. We're working with the vendor now on the GW
problem. They think their equipment might not be responding properly to
the OK from Asterisk. (It doesn't seem to be a very talkative piece of
equipment.)
In any case, a few of the other questions linger:
I added:
if (uri==myself) {
if (method=="ACK") {
route(1);
break;
} else if ...
to the main route's method check and it didn't seem to help. If this is
an acceptable method I'll have to continue to research to see how an
sl_reply could be happening.
That should do it for now. Things are definitely moving in the right
direction.
Thanks again for all the assistance!!
-Corey
*********************************************
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
If your UACs can successfully register,
proxy_authorize should also work.
The INVITE should be authenticated to avoid non-registered users to make
calls.
Doesn't seem to be the case. Really not too sure on this one. Do you
think it might have something to do with the realm not coming through from
the UA?
Anything look wrong to anyone here?
if (!proxy_authorize("my.net","subscriber")) {
proxy_challenge("my.net","0");
break;
} else if (!check_from()) {
sl_send_reply("403", "Use From=ID");
break;
};
consume_credentials();
- I notice a
lot of "Warning: sl_send_reply: I won't send a reply for
ACK!!" but don't know if this is significant or not. From what I've
read it sounds like ACKs are getting an sl_reply rather than being
t_relayed but I didn't really modify anything related ... ?
Yes, this error tells you that ACKs end in an sl_reply, which they
shouldn't. You need to identify the type of ACKs (probably related to your
GW, as a guess), so you can make sure the ACKs are handled correctly.