[Freeswitch-users] Question about bridging calls to a specific URIvia a specific profile

[Darren Schreiber]

Ignore this thread. Apparently I was stripping sip: from the prefix. I guess
you have to specify sip: before utilizing fs_nat and fs_path variables.
 
My bad.
 

  _____  

From: Darren Schreiber [mailto:d at d-man.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:32 AM
To: freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Question about bridging calls to a specific
URIvia a specific profile


Hello,
    I was wondering, I am bridging a call to a specific URI as follows:
 
<action application="bridge"
data="sofia/internal/3032223232 at 3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip%3As%403.5
5.66.180%3A7812">
EXECUTE sofia/internal/+17209460000@
<mailto:sofia/internal/+17209460000 at 2.3.4.5> 2.3.4.5
bridge(sofia/internal/3032223232 at 3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip%3As%403.
55.66.180%3A7812)

2009-06-22 00:16:15.722872 [WARNING] mod_sofia.c:2687 Cannot locate
registered user
3032223232 at 3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip at 3As%403.55.66.180%3A7812

 

The fs_nat and fs_path info and domain are coming from a previous dialplan
app that looked up a user's registered info via sofia_contact. I am
replacing the registered user's SIP username with the DID being called
(3032223232 in this case)

My understanding of bridging a call is that if I specify
sofia/profile/URI at domain that FS will use the specified SIP profile to try
and connect a call to the URI at domain specified. Since the full URI at domain
was specified, there is no reason to lookup the registered user - the call
will just be delivered as a sip call to sip:XXX at domain .

However, adding fs_nat=yes;fs_path=XXX seems to cause FS to look in the user
directory for a matching user. Why is this? Maybe I could use a better
understanding of how fs_nat and fs_path work, but I couldn't find much on
the Wiki about them. Does appending them automatically cause FS to look for
the user being contacted in the directory, as opposed to just using the
fs_path variable? Is this behavior from fs_nat alone?

 

Any explanation would be helpful.

Thanks,
    Darren Schreiber

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20090622/b78961e6/attachment-0002.html