I have the following scenario for a 2-server FS system with failover functionality: * I have a number of Gateways registered at FS1 * I have another number of Gateways registered at FS2 * In case I want to do maintenance on FS1 I would like all external gateways to be registered on FS2 and then shutdown FS1 * This is not of a problem if I have only a handful of gateways, but in our case they're about 10.000 * The goal is to minimze downtime, when I migrate e.g. 5000 gateways from FS1 to FS2 * 1st method: The normal way would be to register (via xml-rpc or socket) the new Gateway on FS2 and then deregister it on FS1. FS1 sends an unregister (register with expires=0) to the gateway though (after the register from FS2), so this Gateway unfortunately no longer sends calls to any of the 2 FS. * 2nd method: The other way is to deregister them first on FS1 and then register them all on FS2. Because deregistering and registering takes time with ~5000 Gateways (+ we have to ensure that the new register has to take place after unregister), this results in a significant downtime. So my question: Is there any way to suppress deregister messages to the gateway? Best regards Peter
Hi Peter, A quick brainstorm:- (a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? (b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? (c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?) so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways? Cheers -- Dave
I have the following scenario for a 2-server FS system with failover functionality:
* I have a number of Gateways registered at FS1 * I have another number of Gateways registered at FS2 * In case I want to do maintenance on FS1 I would like all external gateways to be registered on FS2 and then shutdown FS1 * This is not of a problem if I have only a handful of gateways, but in our case they're about 10.000 * The goal is to minimze downtime, when I migrate e.g. 5000 gateways from FS1 to FS2
* 1st method: The normal way would be to register (via xml-rpc or socket) the new Gateway on FS2 and then deregister it on FS1. FS1 sends an unregister (register with expires=0) to the gateway though (after the register from FS2), so this Gateway unfortunately no longer sends calls to any of the 2 FS. * 2nd method: The other way is to deregister them first on FS1 and then register them all on FS2. Because deregistering and registering takes time with ~5000 Gateways (+ we have to ensure that the new register has to take place after unregister), this results in a significant downtime.
So my question: Is there any way to suppress deregister messages to the gateway?
Best regards Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- David Knell, Director, 3C Limited T: 020 8114 8901 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 001 415 630 3031 http://www.3c.co.uk
Thanks, David, here are my coments:
(a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? A batch is a good method, and reduces the downtime of course
(b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? another good method, but forced to re-register all 5000 gateways, this produces a high load, and anyway FS is spreading re-registers over the expires time period (by trying out, this deos not seem to be documented somewhere?).
<(c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?)
so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways? This will drop existing calls. We thought about adding another firewall rule, but we would like to keep it simple and stable in a production environment.
Best regards Peter David Knell schrieb:
Hi Peter,
A quick brainstorm:- (a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? (b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? (c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?) so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways?
Cheers --
Dave
I have the following scenario for a 2-server FS system with failover functionality:
* I have a number of Gateways registered at FS1 * I have another number of Gateways registered at FS2 * In case I want to do maintenance on FS1 I would like all external gateways to be registered on FS2 and then shutdown FS1 * This is not of a problem if I have only a handful of gateways, but in our case they're about 10.000 * The goal is to minimze downtime, when I migrate e.g. 5000 gateways from FS1 to FS2
* 1st method: The normal way would be to register (via xml-rpc or socket) the new Gateway on FS2 and then deregister it on FS1. FS1 sends an unregister (register with expires=0) to the gateway though (after the register from FS2), so this Gateway unfortunately no longer sends calls to any of the 2 FS. * 2nd method: The other way is to deregister them first on FS1 and then register them all on FS2. Because deregistering and registering takes time with ~5000 Gateways (+ we have to ensure that the new register has to take place after unregister), this results in a significant downtime.
So my question: Is there any way to suppress deregister messages to the gateway?
Best regards Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- David Knell, Director, 3C Limited T: 020 8114 8901 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 001 415 630 3031 http://www.3c.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
How are your endpoints pointing to the 2 boxes? Using dns srv records. I think the cleanest way is to change the srv records, do a "pause" on freeswitch 1, wait for all calls and registrations to fall off of box 1, all new registrations and calls will then be to box 2, once it is clear you can take box 1 down for maint. Mike On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Peter P GMX wrote:
Thanks, David,
here are my coments:
(a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? A batch is a good method, and reduces the downtime of course
(b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? another good method, but forced to re-register all 5000 gateways, this produces a high load, and anyway FS is spreading re-registers over the expires time period (by trying out, this deos not seem to be documented somewhere?).
<(c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?)
so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways? This will drop existing calls. We thought about adding another firewall rule, but we would like to keep it simple and stable in a production environment.
Best regards Peter
David Knell schrieb:
Hi Peter,
A quick brainstorm:- (a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? (b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? (c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?) so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways?
Cheers --
Dave
I have the following scenario for a 2-server FS system with failover functionality:
* I have a number of Gateways registered at FS1 * I have another number of Gateways registered at FS2 * In case I want to do maintenance on FS1 I would like all external gateways to be registered on FS2 and then shutdown FS1 * This is not of a problem if I have only a handful of gateways, but in our case they're about 10.000 * The goal is to minimze downtime, when I migrate e.g. 5000 gateways from FS1 to FS2
* 1st method: The normal way would be to register (via xml-rpc or socket) the new Gateway on FS2 and then deregister it on FS1. FS1 sends an unregister (register with expires=0) to the gateway though (after the register from FS2), so this Gateway unfortunately no longer sends calls to any of the 2 FS. * 2nd method: The other way is to deregister them first on FS1 and then register them all on FS2. Because deregistering and registering takes time with ~5000 Gateways (+ we have to ensure that the new register has to take place after unregister), this results in a significant downtime.
So my question: Is there any way to suppress deregister messages to the gateway?
Best regards Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- David Knell, Director, 3C Limited T: 020 8114 8901 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 001 415 630 3031 http://www.3c.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for the hint, we are doing this with SIP SRV records already. Concerning pause: There is a command to pause the media on a given channel. Is there another command to stop FS responding on requests? Best regards Peter Michael Jerris schrieb:
How are your endpoints pointing to the 2 boxes? Using dns srv records. I think the cleanest way is to change the srv records, do a "pause" on freeswitch 1, wait for all calls and registrations to fall off of box 1, all new registrations and calls will then be to box 2, once it is clear you can take box 1 down for maint.
Mike
On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Peter P GMX wrote:
Thanks, David,
here are my coments:
(a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time,
or in batches, on FS1
while registering them on FS2?
A batch is a good method, and reduces the downtime of course
(b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially,
and then increase it once FS1's
taken down?
another good method, but forced to re-register all 5000 gateways, this produces a high load, and anyway FS is spreading re-registers over the expires time period (by trying out, this deos not seem to be documented somewhere?).
<(c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?)
so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways?
This will drop existing calls. We thought about adding another firewall rule, but we would like to keep it simple and stable in a production environment.
Best regards Peter
David Knell schrieb:
Hi Peter,
A quick brainstorm:- (a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? (b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? (c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?) so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways?
Cheers --
Dave
I have the following scenario for a 2-server FS system with failover functionality:
* I have a number of Gateways registered at FS1 * I have another number of Gateways registered at FS2 * In case I want to do maintenance on FS1 I would like all external gateways to be registered on FS2 and then shutdown FS1 * This is not of a problem if I have only a handful of gateways, but in our case they're about 10.000 * The goal is to minimze downtime, when I migrate e.g. 5000 gateways from FS1 to FS2
* 1st method: The normal way would be to register (via xml-rpc or socket) the new Gateway on FS2 and then deregister it on FS1. FS1 sends an unregister (register with expires=0) to the gateway though (after the register from FS2), so this Gateway unfortunately no longer sends calls to any of the 2 FS. * 2nd method: The other way is to deregister them first on FS1 and then register them all on FS2. Because deregistering and registering takes time with ~5000 Gateways (+ we have to ensure that the new register has to take place after unregister), this results in a significant downtime.
So my question: Is there any way to suppress deregister messages to the gateway?
Best regards Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- David Knell, Director, 3C Limited T: 020 8114 8901 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 001 415 630 3031 http://www.3c.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
fsctl pause will make it reject all calls globally. you could also add an ext in your dp that does 302 to the other box and load it when needed during the transition. On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Peter P GMX <Prometheus001@gmx.net> wrote:
Thanks for the hint,
we are doing this with SIP SRV records already. Concerning pause: There is a command to pause the media on a given channel. Is there another command to stop FS responding on requests?
Best regards Peter
Michael Jerris schrieb:
How are your endpoints pointing to the 2 boxes? Using dns srv records. I think the cleanest way is to change the srv records, do a "pause" on freeswitch 1, wait for all calls and registrations to fall off of box 1, all new registrations and calls will then be to box 2, once it is clear you can take box 1 down for maint.
Mike
On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Peter P GMX wrote:
Thanks, David,
here are my coments:
(a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time,
or in batches, on FS1
while registering them on FS2?
A batch is a good method, and reduces the downtime of course
(b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially,
and then increase it once FS1's
taken down?
another good method, but forced to re-register all 5000 gateways, this produces a high load, and anyway FS is spreading re-registers over the expires time period (by trying out, this deos not seem to be documented somewhere?).
<(c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?)
so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways?
This will drop existing calls. We thought about adding another firewall rule, but we would like to keep it simple and stable in a production environment.
Best regards Peter
David Knell schrieb:
Hi Peter,
A quick brainstorm:- (a) can you not do something where you deregister them one at a time, or in batches, on FS1 while registering them on FS2? (b) use method 1, but set a short period for re-registration initially, and then increase it once FS1's taken down? (c) use method 1, but take FS1 off the network before taking it down (e.g. ifdown eth0, route delete default..?) so that its unregistration attempts don't reach the gateways?
Cheers --
Dave
I have the following scenario for a 2-server FS system with failover functionality:
* I have a number of Gateways registered at FS1 * I have another number of Gateways registered at FS2 * In case I want to do maintenance on FS1 I would like all external gateways to be registered on FS2 and then shutdown FS1 * This is not of a problem if I have only a handful of gateways, but in our case they're about 10.000 * The goal is to minimze downtime, when I migrate e.g. 5000 gateways from FS1 to FS2
* 1st method: The normal way would be to register (via xml-rpc or socket) the new Gateway on FS2 and then deregister it on FS1. FS1 sends an unregister (register with expires=0) to the gateway though (after the register from FS2), so this Gateway unfortunately no longer sends calls to any of the 2 FS. * 2nd method: The other way is to deregister them first on FS1 and then register them all on FS2. Because deregistering and registering takes time with ~5000 Gateways (+ we have to ensure that the new register has to take place after unregister), this results in a significant downtime.
So my question: Is there any way to suppress deregister messages to the gateway?
Best regards Peter
_______________________________________________ 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
-- David Knell, Director, 3C Limited T: 020 8114 8901 F: 020 3002 7257 M: 001 415 630 3031 http://www.3c.co.uk
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Anthony Minessale II FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ AIM: anthm MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com <MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com<PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org <sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org> iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org<googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org> pstn:213-799-1400
I have tested to transfer a call with the last Freeswitch and 3 IP phones. My test scenario is the following. 1. 202 makes a call to 201. 2. After 201 holds a call from 202, 202 can hear MOH and 201 makes a call to 200. 3. After 201 transfers a call from 202 to 200, the both displays of 202 and 200 are 201. What do I do to replace the display of 202 and 200 to each other? My IP phones can change the display with From header of reinvite. Could I send reinvite with From header of new caller id after transferring a call?
You have a jira on this already and I'm looking at this.. and can you please NOT hijack threads. Click NEW message input the address. DO NOT click reply.. delete the body and change the subject aka hijack. /b On Nov 20, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote:
I have tested to transfer a call with the last Freeswitch and 3 IP phones. My test scenario is the following.
1. 202 makes a call to 201. 2. After 201 holds a call from 202, 202 can hear MOH and 201 makes a call to 200. 3. After 201 transfers a call from 202 to 200, the both displays of 202 and 200 are 201.
What do I do to replace the display of 202 and 200 to each other? My IP phones can change the display with From header of reinvite. Could I send reinvite with From header of new caller id after transferring a call?
_______________________________________________ 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
You may misunderstand my email. My posting in JIRA is the problem of "show calls" command of freeswitch. But, this question is that how to change the caller id display of IP-Phone. Do you think these are same problem?
-----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch- users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Brian West Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 9:44 AM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] How to change IP-Phone's caller id aftertransfering a call
You have a jira on this already and I'm looking at this.. and can you please NOT hijack threads.
Click NEW message input the address. DO NOT click reply.. delete the body and change the subject aka hijack.
/b
On Nov 20, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote:
I have tested to transfer a call with the last Freeswitch and 3 IP phones. My test scenario is the following.
1. 202 makes a call to 201. 2. After 201 holds a call from 202, 202 can hear MOH and 201 makes a call to 200. 3. After 201 transfers a call from 202 to 200, the both displays of 202 and 200 are 201.
What do I do to replace the display of 202 and 200 to each other? My IP phones can change the display with From header of reinvite. Could I send reinvite with From header of new caller id after transferring a call?
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Check out the variables Wiki page. It tells you the various variables that affect callerid. /b On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote:
You may misunderstand my email. My posting in JIRA is the problem of "show calls" command of freeswitch. But, this question is that how to change the caller id display of IP- Phone.
Do you think these are same problem?
I have checked WIKI already. But I can't find variable to change caller id of IP phone after transferring a call. effective_caller_id_number change the caller id of initial call, not transferred call.
-----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch- users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Brian West Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 10:04 AM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] How to change IP-Phone's caller idaftertransfering a call
Check out the variables Wiki page. It tells you the various variables that affect callerid.
/b On Nov 20, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote:
You may misunderstand my email. My posting in JIRA is the problem of "show calls" command of freeswitch. But, this question is that how to change the caller id display of IP- Phone.
Do you think these are same problem?
_______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Sangwoo Jin <swjinjin@volans.kr> wrote:
I have checked WIKI already. But I can't find variable to change caller id of IP phone after transferring a call. effective_caller_id_number change the caller id of initial call, not transferred call.
The wiki says: effective_caller_id_number Sets the effective callerid number. Automatically exported to originated channels. It is a var set on a channel in case it becomes the A leg of a bridge - it will use this callerid number on the B leg outbound call. Failing that, have you tried with: <action application="bridge" data="{effective_caller_id_number=<whatever>}sofia/....." /> ? - Gonzalo
After transferring a call, caller id is not changed with effective_caller_id_number. effective_caller_id_number affects the caller id of first INVITE message. But after transferring a call with REFER message, new caller id is not sent to IP phone again. How do I do to send the new caller id to IP phone after a call is transferred? _____ From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:51 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] How to change IP-Phone's calleridaftertransfering a call On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Sangwoo Jin <swjinjin@volans.kr> wrote: I have checked WIKI already. But I can't find variable to change caller id of IP phone after transferring a call. effective_caller_id_number change the caller id of initial call, not transferred call. The wiki says: effective_caller_id_number Sets the effective callerid number. Automatically exported to originated channels. It is a var set on a channel in case it becomes the A leg of a bridge - it will use this callerid number on the B leg outbound call. Failing that, have you tried with: <action application="bridge" data="{effective_caller_id_number=<whatever>}sofia/....." /> ? - Gonzalo
What kind of phone are you trying to update the display on, different phones handle this a bit differently. Mike On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote:
After transferring a call, caller id is not changed with effective_caller_id_number. effective_caller_id_number affects the caller id of first INVITE message. But after transferring a call with REFER message, new caller id is not sent to IP phone again.
How do I do to send the new caller id to IP phone after a call is transferred?
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org ] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:51 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] How to change IP-Phone's calleridaftertransfering a call
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Sangwoo Jin <swjinjin@volans.kr> wrote: I have checked WIKI already. But I can't find variable to change caller id of IP phone after transferring a call. effective_caller_id_number change the caller id of initial call, not transferred call.
The wiki says: effective_caller_id_number
Sets the effective callerid number. Automatically exported to originated channels. It is a var set on a channel in case it becomes the A leg of a bridge - it will use this callerid number on the B leg outbound call.
Failing that, have you tried with:
<action application="bridge" data="{effective_caller_id_number=<whatever>}sofia/....." />
?
My IP phone is IP-150 of Moimstone, Korean company. This phone supports the change of caller id display with From header of reinvite request. So, if I have a method to send a reinvite request after transferring a call, I can change the caller id display of my IP phone. Could I do send a reinvite after transferring a call? _____ From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Michael Jerris Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 12:16 AM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] How to change IP-Phone'scalleridaftertransfering a call What kind of phone are you trying to update the display on, different phones handle this a bit differently. Mike On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote: After transferring a call, caller id is not changed with effective_caller_id_number. effective_caller_id_number affects the caller id of first INVITE message. But after transferring a call with REFER message, new caller id is not sent to IP phone again. How do I do to send the new caller id to IP phone after a call is transferred? _____ From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Servat Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:51 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] How to change IP-Phone's calleridaftertransfering a call On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Sangwoo Jin <swjinjin@volans.kr> wrote: I have checked WIKI already. But I can't find variable to change caller id of IP phone after transferring a call. effective_caller_id_number change the caller id of initial call, not transferred call. The wiki says: effective_caller_id_number Sets the effective callerid number. Automatically exported to originated channels. It is a var set on a channel in case it becomes the A leg of a bridge - it will use this callerid number on the B leg outbound call. Failing that, have you tried with: <action application="bridge" data="{effective_caller_id_number=<whatever>}sofia/....." /> ?
If you had a snom it would already do it for you ;)... What phone are you using again? /b On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:14 PM, Sangwoo Jin wrote:
After transferring a call, caller id is not changed with effective_caller_id_number. effective_caller_id_number affects the caller id of first INVITE message. But after transferring a call with REFER message, new caller id is not sent to IP phone again.
How do I do to send the new caller id to IP phone after a call is transferred?
participants (7)
-
Anthony Minessale
-
Brian West
-
David Knell
-
Gonzalo Servat
-
Michael Jerris
-
Peter P GMX
-
Sangwoo Jin