This is strange, I try to look on it.
I thought, that lookup_user and lookup_domain work with database
independently on usrloc.
Vaclav
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:59:10AM +0200, samuel wrote:
There's anothing issue that can be mentioned in
the handbook:
using usrloc module with db backend (db_mode!=0) entails that all
lookup_user||lookup_domain calls will fail and the example configs
that appear on the presence documentation will not offer the expected
behaviour...
Another option is to wait until lookup_* functions work with DB backend...
Samuel.
2006/5/15, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart(a)iptel.org>rg>:
>Hi,
>this problem I'm trying to solve with Ilker Aktuna. I try to simulate it
>on my machine and let you know. Or if you solve it, please let me know.
>:-)
>
>Please, could you tell me, what things you were missing in presence
>handbook? I'm trying to do it as useful as possible and whatever ideas
>are welcome...
>
> Vaclav
>
>On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 01:38:02PM +0200, samuel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently had a few hours and start installing the presence staff and
>> I have to say that I have it amost workign thanks to the presence
>> handbook, the mailing list and, obviously, a little bit of code
>> review..:P
>>
>> I have two SER instances, the "proxy" and the "presence
server" (both
>> with last CVS code) co-located in the same host and I have an issue
>> when the "presence server" tries to send the NOTIFY requests. Below
>> there's an attched log showing the problem (on IP a.b.c.d I've got the
>> two instances):
>>
>> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:378: sending winfo notify
>> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:383: winfo document created
>> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:391: creating headers
>> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:398: headers created
>> 3(30682) DEBUG:tm:t_uac:
>> next_hop=<sip:a.b.c.d;transport=tcp;ftag=c77b3f33;lr=on>
>> 3(30682) t_uac: no socket found
>> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:402: request sent with result -7
>> 3(30682) ERROR: notify.c:404: Can't send watcherinfo notification (-7)
>>
>> This problem appears in other places, not only in the notifications
>> for winfo so probably there's somthing in the selection of the
>> outgoing socket directing to the local IP.
>>
>> >From the proxy part I just ust t_forward_nonack for the "SIMPLE"
>> messages with record route....maybe adding the port in the record
>> route should help?
>>
>>
>> Samuel.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>