2 Sep
2004
2 Sep
'04
9:14 p.m.
Adrian/Jan,
I have following setup.
UA--(registered as friendly name - ranga )--ser--PSTN.
For termination, our provider's PSTN GW mandates
Contact header to be the proxy address because we
asked for origination on our proxy. This has become a
problem as original contact of UA is lost at the
server. Subsequent ACKs or BYEs will never reach UA if
we change the contact.
Second scenario where friendly names are not validated
at the pstn gateway. They require a DID to be
mentioned in the From uri.
This kind of specifications keep changing from
provider to provider. Is there a work around for this
without much deviation from SIP?
In any of the above scenarios, origination was never a
problem. We were able to seturi using a module that
reads our user mapping information.
Thanks in advance.
Ranga
--- Adrian Georgescu <ag(a)ag-projects.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Ezequiel Colombo wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
Hi Adrian, Jan, this is a good initiative.
As a litle contribution i sugest the introduction
of a "strip" column
in the
lcr table and the logic in the module to strip
digits in the dialed
number
before prepend the "prefix". This digit
manipulation is commonly
needed in
inter carrier routing.
Yes
curious: (Adrian): You make the gateway lookup
using a loop function
that
make several selects to db after obtain a match in
"destination" ???
Yes because you might have 5 gateways with different
priorities used in
each failure route
Thanks
Ezequiel Colombo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Georgescu" <ag(a)ag-projects.com>
To: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Failover PSTN Gateways
> Yes Jan, if less work the better.
>
> On Sep 2, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Jan Janak wrote:
>
>> On 02-09 13:06, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
>>> On Sep 2, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Jan Janak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, in the document you
mention that
subsequent
>>>> requests (ACK, BYE) go to the
same gateway,
but that is something
>>>> that
>>>> would happen anyway because the gateway puts
its Contact into
reply
>>>> and
>>>> record-routing will route subsequent messages
to that contact.
>>>> Do you plan to write any
additional support
for that or did I just
>>>> misunderstand the text ?
>>>
>>> Yes there will be some additional support to
make sure same route si
>>> followed regardless of how the phone
(mis)behaves.
>>
>> What does that mean ? Record-routing will do
the job for you and if
>> it
>> is broken in the phone then there is a really
high chance that it
>> will
>> have severe interoperability problems, so why
bother with storing
additional session state ?
Jan.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers