Hi all, I'm experimenting with the t38_gateway in mod_spandsp to build a gateway that fully supports "passive" T_38. My test config looks like this: <extension name="test"> <condition> <action application="set" data="fax_enable_t38=true"/> <action application="set" data="sip_execute_on_image=t38_gateway self nocng"/> <action application="bridge" data="{sip_execute_on_image='t38_gateway self nocng'}sofia/internal/1234@hostB"/> </condition> </extension> This works perfectly when: - the A-leg sends a T38 re-INVITE and the B-leg doesn't or - the A-leg doesn't send a T38 re-INVITE but the B-leg does or - nor the A-leg, nor the B-leg send a T38 re-INVITE This does _NOT_ work when both the A-leg and the B-leg send a T38 re-INVITE, in this case the call is hangup. A snipped from the logging on the cli after the second T38 re-INVITE is received shows: 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] sofia.c:5526 Channel sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx entering state [received][100] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] sofia.c:5537 Remote SDP: v=0 o=keen 1348795719 1348795720 IN IP4 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx s=Keen c=IN IP4 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx t=0 0 m=image 4568 udptl t38 a=T38FaxVersion:0 a=T38MaxBitRate:14400 a=T38FaxRateManagement:transferredTCF a=T38FaxMaxDatagram:849 a=T38FaxUdpEC:t38UDPFEC EXECUTE sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx t38_gateway(self nocng) 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] mod_spandsp_fax.c:1950 sofia/wan_in/anonymous@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx starting gateway mode to sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] mod_spandsp_fax.c:1965 (sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) State Change CS_CONSUME_MEDIA -> CS_RESET 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_core_session.c:1180 Send signal sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [BREAK] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] mod_spandsp_fax.c:1968 (sofia/wan_in/anonymous@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) State Change CS_SOFT_EXECUTE -> CS_RESET 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_core_session.c:1180 Send signal sofia/wan_in/anonymous@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [BREAK] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_core_session.c:729 Send signal sofia/wan_in/anonymous@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [BREAK] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_channel.c:2848 (sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) Callstate Change ACTIVE -> HANGUP 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_core_session.c:2285 sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx skip receive message [APPLICATION_EXEC_COMPLETE] (channel is hungup already) 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [NOTICE] mod_spandsp_fax.c:1663 Hangup sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [CS_RESET] [NORMAL_CLEARING] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_channel.c:2871 Send signal sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [KILL] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_core_session.c:1180 Send signal sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [BREAK] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] switch_channel.c:2848 (sofia/wan_in/anonymous@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) Callstate Change ACTIVE -> HANGUP 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [NOTICE] mod_spandsp_fax.c:1671 Hangup sofia/wan_in/anonymous@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx [CS_RESET] [NORMAL_CLEARING] 2012-02-29 14:11:34.044702 [DEBUG] mod_spandsp_fax.c:1858 sofia/wan_out/+3188xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx skip receive message [UNBRIDGE] (channel is hungup already) Does anybody know what goes wrong here? Steven
On 02/29/2012 09:21 PM, Steven Lam, KeenSystems B.V. wrote:
Hi all,
I'm experimenting with the t38_gateway in mod_spandsp to build a gateway that fully supports "passive" T_38. My test config looks like this: Interesting term. What do you consider to be "passive" T.38?
Steve
Hi, I consider a gateway only reacting to T38 re-INVITES and not initiating T38 re-INVITES "passive". My setup works great for this, the only problem is when both the A- and B-leg send a T38 re-INVITES something goes wrong. Steven
-----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch- users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Steve Underwood Sent: donderdag 1 maart 2012 15:58 To: FreeSWITCH Users Help Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Problems with t38_gateway
On 02/29/2012 09:21 PM, Steven Lam, KeenSystems B.V. wrote:
Hi all,
I'm experimenting with the t38_gateway in mod_spandsp to build a gateway that fully supports "passive" T_38. My test config looks like this: Interesting term. What do you consider to be "passive" T.38?
Steve
__________________________________________________________ _______________ 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
participants (2)
-
Steve Underwood
-
Steven Lam, KeenSystems B.V.