On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Cliff Wells <cliff@develix.com> wrote:

I'd like to setup a gateway with no registration (other end allows by
IP).

<include>
<gateway name="outbound">
<param name="username" value="none"/>
<param name="password" value="none"/>
<param name="proxy" value="x.x.x.x"/>
<param name="register-transport" value="udp"/>
<param name="retry-seconds" value="30"/>
<param name="caller-id-in-from" value="true"/>
</gateway>
</include>

As I understand it, the username and password shouldn't matter since
registration is challenge/auth.

What happens is I get a 403 when FreeSWITCH attempts to register (before
any calls are placed), so FreeSWITCH has the gateway marked as
FAIL_WAIT. Is this proof the other end is requiring registration? Or
is FS expecting a challenge, getting none and marking the gateway down?

Most of the solutions I've seen for this type of setup involve using a
dialplan rather than a gateway, but my dialplans are served via
mod_xml_curl and expect a functional gateway named "outbound" on the FS
box. I'd rather not clutter up the xml dialplans with a bunch of
special cases, so a named gateway is preferred.

The problem certainly may lie on the other end (I don't have control of
that system), but I'm not sure how to verify that.

Regards,
Cliff

_______________________________________________
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org