Which one of the force-<>-domain params?
Hi, just about 100% feature-function:feature-function migrated off of that other platform. Bit of a learning curve but loving freeSWITCH. Thanks for just a great project! All is working. Our edge router's NAT is very robust and configurable (openBSD's pf) and we're using STUN. However, in comparing the old sip traces to the fs sip traces, we have noticed something that I just don't know what to tinker with. With regard to the following fs sip trace output frag, Contact: <sip:gw+trunk-voipms@192.168.2.3 :5080;transport=udp;gw=trunk-voipms> To: <sip:99.1.2.3:5080>;tag=0myeUN32NySac With the 'other' config, we'd instead see, Contact: <sip:gw+trunk-voipms@mydomain.ca :5060;transport=udp;gw=trunk-voipms> To: <sip:mydomain.ca:5060>;tag=0myeUN32NySac Rolling forward, we'd prefer the mydomain.ca flavor. We operate a DNS with split horizon and SRV records, meaning public-outside, in fact, see's/resolves 99.1.2.3, and inside hosts and end points, in fact, see/resolve 192.168.2.3. We think it's one of the force-<>-domain or db-domain params but (our bad) cannot "get it right." Any thoughts as to the correct fs param="?" sip such that the fs sip-domain-string is used where that sip-domain-string that also is properly glued to a matching (resolvable) DNS-string? Thanks,
Is this an outbound call made from a local phone out a gateway that you configured? -MC On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Scott <8f27e956@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, just about 100% feature-function:feature-function migrated off of that other platform. Bit of a learning curve but loving freeSWITCH.
Thanks for just a great project!
All is working. Our edge router's NAT is very robust and configurable (openBSD's pf) and we're using STUN. However, in comparing the old sip traces to the fs sip traces, we have noticed something that I just don't know what to tinker with.
With regard to the following fs sip trace output frag,
Contact: <sip:gw+trunk-voipms@192.168.2.3 :5080;transport=udp;gw=trunk-voipms> To: <sip:99.1.2.3:5080>;tag=0myeUN32NySac
With the 'other' config, we'd instead see,
Contact: <sip:gw+trunk-voipms@mydomain.ca :5060;transport=udp;gw=trunk-voipms> To: <sip:mydomain.ca:5060>;tag=0myeUN32NySac
Rolling forward, we'd prefer the mydomain.ca flavor.
We operate a DNS with split horizon and SRV records, meaning public-outside, in fact, see's/resolves 99.1.2.3, and inside hosts and end points, in fact, see/resolve 192.168.2.3.
We think it's one of the force-<>-domain or db-domain params but (our bad) cannot "get it right."
Any thoughts as to the correct fs param="?" sip such that the fs sip-domain-string is used where that sip-domain-string that also is properly glued to a matching (resolvable) DNS-string?
Thanks,
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
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
-- Michael S Collins Twitter: @mercutioviz http://www.FreeSWITCH.org http://www.ClueCon.com http://www.OSTAG.org
You shouldn't, because it doesn't matter. If you're doing this for aesthetic then you're failing. You're only going to add additional delays in all transactions doing SRV lookups for that vanity. -- Brian West brian@freeswitch.org FreeSWITCH Solutions, LLC PO BOX PO BOX 2531 Brookfield, WI 53008-2531 Twitter: @FreeSWITCH_Wire T: +1.918.420.9266 | F: +1.918.420.9267 | M: +1.918.424.WEST iNUM: +883 5100 1420 9266 UK: +44 20 3298 4900 ISN: 410*543 On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Scott <8f27e956@gmail.com> wrote:
Rolling forward, we'd prefer the mydomain.ca flavor.
participants (3)
-
Brian West
-
Michael Collins
-
Scott