[Spce-user] 400 Normal Release
dave at optionsdsl.ca
Thu Nov 8 20:57:40 EST 2012
Point 1 is correct.!
Point 2 is N/A, I dont have them as a provider., that problem belongs to provider A as well. (TieUS), and Im not 100% yet, but I believe the DTMF INFO only works when using topoh, if I change the 127.0.0.1 to something else instead of topoh it seems to break again (will verify again)..
pont 3 is correct.!
On 2012-11-08, at 6:47 PM, Skyler <skchopperguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Just to clarify, my understanding of the problem(s) is:
> 1. Provider A (TieUS) has inbound DTMF and call dropping problem because the RR is 127.0.0.1 and they don't like this. So the last-resort solution is to introduce topoh to re-write as private address space. However, in doing so, the spce-lb is detecting 'NATed request detected' and subsequent 'NATed in-dialog request detected'. This results in add_contact_alias() being called to rewrite the Contact as <sip:10.1.1.10;line=sr-N6IAzhaINwPlPxFAOBPAOBM6OBFLWxvuMx3A>. This causes problems with other carriers.
> 2. Provider B (Group Telecom) sends DTMF as INFO. This is now fixed by adding INFO to spce-proxy.
> 3. Provider C (Voxcentral) has no issues until topoh is introduced. Then due to the bad contact, they drop the call(s) after some time.
> Is this correct?
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Dave Massey <dave at optionsdsl.ca> wrote:
> Im not sure Im not familiar with topoh.
> I have to do some more testing to be sure, but INFO worked for DTMF and using topoh, but didnt work using the method below.
> But I have to check again to be sure.
> On 2012-11-08, at 3:59 AM, Andrew Pogrebennyk <apogrebennyk at sipwise.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > On 11/07/2012 03:40 AM, Dave Massey wrote:
> >> I went back to the roots of modifying the iaddress field in config.yml
> >> after creating an unused "dummy" ethernet interface. I wasn't modifying
> >> the other 2 instances of 127.0.0.1 as was mentioned by Andrew today.
> >> And that worked... But maybe lost the SIP INFO DTMF in one direction again.
> >> Both peers now work (minus incoming DTMF from TieUS, again) without
> >> dropping calls.
> >> You think this is a good way to work around this problem?
> > That is a good way IMO, yes.
> > What are you trying to accomplish with topoh? We use sems to rewrite the
> > From and To header with sip:provider's IP address and that should be it.
> > Hasn't DTMF problem been resolved by adding INFO to the supported methods?
> > BR,
> > Andrew
> Spce-user mailing list
> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spce-user