Hi,
I'm a newbie on SER so please be patient. I have been using * for quite a while and now decided to use SER as a front-end for my SIP users. I have everything setup including *, SER, RPTProxy, STUN and everything works except for DTMF tones, for example, when I access * voicemail through SER the tones do not get correctly recognized by *. Asterisk is configured to use RFC2833 as a transport for DTMF tones.
Can anyone please help me solve this issue?
Thanks in advance,
Humberto
Hello,
--- Humberto Aicardi humberto@aicardi.com.br wrote:
I'm a newbie on SER so please be patient. I have been using *for quite a while and now decided to use SER as a front-end for my SIP users. I have everything setup including *, SER, RPTProxy, STUN and everything works except for DTMF tones, for example, when I access * voicemail through SER the tones do not get correctly recognized by *. Asterisk is configured to use RFC2833 as a transport for DTMF tones.
Please be more specific. What do you mean by "do not get correctly recognized by *" ? Is * not getting dtmf tones? or getting incorrect tones?
What dtmf mode does the client use? Inband or INFO? SER doesnt handle media. SER will relay INFO requests. See if the dtmfmode is specified in the right context, and see if any SIPDtmfMode command overrides your rfc2833 setting.
Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi all,
I have 0.9.0 running with customized version of ser.cfg posted by Paul, I think.
It works to the extent that the .cfg has so far been developed.
However on “serctl start” and with traffic I get multiple logs which all seem to stem from:
“send_rtpp_command: can’t connect to RTP proxy”.
Can any one point me in the right direction to “resolve” this?
On a connected note (I think),
The cfg file is based, it seems, on nat-helper operation.
I understand that nat-helper and media-proxy are mutually exclusive.
but that media-proxy seems to be more powerful
and well suitable for smaller systems that do not need to scale greatly.
Is there any document which explains what are the fundamental differences in capabilities between the two, and ser.cfg deltas required to go from nat-helper-->media-proxy.
I have found text which references one or the other but not in a comparative sense.
thanks
Chris
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004
Chris,
I have just configured RTPProxy and currently is working, but after reading about Media-proxy I too would like to have a comparison between RTPProxy and Media-Proxy. If someone could be kind enough to explain the difference I will appreciate it.
Thanks,
Humberto
-----Mensagem original----- De: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] Em nome de Chris Enviada em: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:53 PM Para: serusers@lists.iptel.org Assunto: [Serusers] "Can't connect to RTP proxy"
Hi all,
I have 0.9.0 running with customized version of ser.cfg posted by Paul, I think.
It works to the extent that the .cfg has so far been developed.
However on "serctl start" and with traffic I get multiple logs which all seem to stem from:
"send_rtpp_command: can't connect to RTP proxy".
Can any one point me in the right direction to "resolve" this?
On a connected note (I think),
The cfg file is based, it seems, on nat-helper operation.
I understand that nat-helper and media-proxy are mutually exclusive.
but that media-proxy seems to be more powerful
and well suitable for smaller systems that do not need to scale greatly.
Is there any document which explains what are the fundamental differences in capabilities between the two, and ser.cfg deltas required to go from nat-helper-->media-proxy.
I have found text which references one or the other but not in a comparative sense.
thanks
Chris
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004
-
Chris -
Girish -
Humberto Aicardi