Am Dienstag, 5. Februar 2013, 13:55:41 schrieb Charles Chance:
>> as the original author of the module I'd think that changing or replacing
>> the existing module would be the way to go. So far I'd not recieved that
>> much of bug reports against the existing module. And as Alex Balashov also
>> mentioned recently, there are some other issues with the current library.
>>
>> If existing users need to stay with the old module, its available in the
>> git and the existing releases, for the new release we should go with a
>> module which supports the newer library.
>>
>> It would be nice if you could stay with the existing PV API, which I
>> modelled somehow after the htable module. If you need to change something,
>> just announce it on the devel list and ask for feedback.
> We have indeed used the module in the past with no issues - so thank you for
> writing and sharing :)
>
> Very happy to stay with existing PVs if possible. The only thing I'd like to
> see different is to set value and expiry at the same time, instead of
> having to set value, then alter expiration. This has to be better than
> setting a value with some default expiry, getting that same value back
> again, then re-setting the value once more with a different expiry?
>
> Could this be implemented at PV level? Something like $mct(key:expiry) =
> value? And if expiry is omitted, we use default set in params.
Hi Charles,
thanks, good to know that you use it. :-) With regards to the expiry value,
yes I think this could be implemented like this. Just one remark, the syntax
that other PVs uses is "=>", like in
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/3.3.x/pseudovariables#sht_htable_key
Then it would be $mct(key=>expiry) = value
Best regards,
Henning Westerholt
Hi,
I am facing some challenge with dispatcher configuration with two
Asterisk
I have installed Kamailio and two Asterisk server and Phones
are register with Asterisk through Kamailio
I have followed this link
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2011-April/068175.html
Now i have added dispatcher module and dispatcher list also
I am try to route all calls to Asterisk with load balance
Can please advice the step by step configuration to route calls from
Kamailio to two Asterisk ( one call first Asterisk and Second call to
other asterisk )
With Regards
N.Prakash
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prakash N <prakash.n(a)tevatel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Muhammad,
>
> We are following below document for Kamailio and Asterisk integration
>
> http://kb.asipto.com/asterisk:realtime:kamailio-3.3.x-asterisk-10.7.0-astdb
>
>
>
> We are plan use one Kamailio with Multiple asterisk (Queue,IVR
> and Conference purpose)
>
>
> Now calls are landing to asterisk with load balancing using dispatcher
> for Queue and IVR (One asterisk first and next Asterisk for second calls )
>
> But if try to calls extension it is landing both Asterisk server instead
> landing one asterisk first and next Asterisk for second calls
>
> Please advice
>
> With Regards
>
> N.Prakash
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Muhammad Shahzad <shaheryarkh(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I am not sure what you are trying to do. Your description is too brief to
>> understand. Can you send me complete call flow?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Prakash N <prakash.n(a)tevatel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Muhammad,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your mail
>>>
>>> Actually we are trying to do load balance with one Kamailio
>>> with multiple Asterisk server
>>>
>>> Now if call Queue,IVR to Kamailio it routing to asterisk
>>> with ramdam strategy load balance ( first call on one and second to other
>>> server )
>>> If i call extension to extension it is landing to all Asterisk ( I
>>> have use all Asterisk feature for that i want to route all call to asterisk
>>> ) on the same time ,How to do load balance for extension calling also
>>>
>>> We are not sure what we are tiring doi is right or wrong
>>>
>>> Please advice and correct us if anything wrong
>>>
>>> With Regards
>>>
>>> N.Prakash
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Muhammad Shahzad <shaheryarkh(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are you forwarding instead of relaying the message to selected
>>>> destination? Forward is stateless and therefore likely to have NAT issues,
>>>> specially if destination server is behind NAT or client is behind NAT and
>>>> destination server is unable to handle NAT etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> Also typically dispatcher is used to load balance calls between two or
>>>> more upstream server, not for load balancing extensions within one server,
>>>> though with some tweaking that might also be achieved but better to do this
>>>> kind of thing on destination server rather then on kamailio.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Prakash N <prakash.n(a)tevatel.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please advice for the below issue
>>>>>
>>>>> With Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> N.Prakash
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Prakash N <prakash.n(a)tevatel.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have finished the Kamailio & Asterisk real time integration and
>>>>>> load balancing also done using dispatcher module.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Queue and voice mails are load balancing as well.When we are calling
>>>>>> extension to extension it is showing in all the servers.It seems extension
>>>>>> are not load balancing as per our knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have attached the kamailio.cfg for your reference,Find
>>>>>> my coding below as mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *# -- dispatcher params for DB support --*
>>>>>> *modparam("dispatcher","db_url", "mysql://
>>>>>> openser:openserrw@192.168.1.170/openser")*
>>>>>> *modparam("dispatcher", "table_name", "dispatcher")*
>>>>>> *modparam("dispatcher", "setid_col", "setid")*
>>>>>> *modparam("dispatcher", "destination_col", "destination")*
>>>>>> *modparam("dispatcher", "flags_col", "flags")*
>>>>>> *modparam("dispatcher", "priority_col", "priority")*
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *# Dispatch requests*
>>>>>> *route[DISPATCH] {*
>>>>>> *if ( method=="INVITE" ) {*
>>>>>> *# dst_select( "GROUP", "HASH METHOD")*
>>>>>> * ds_select_dst("1","4");*
>>>>>> * sl_send_reply("100","Trying");*
>>>>>> * forward();#uri:host, uri:port);*
>>>>>> * exit();*
>>>>>> *}}*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kindly suggest the solution for the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> N.Prakash
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Muhammad Shahzad
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> CISCO Rich Media Communication Specialist (CRMCS)
>>>> CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA)
>>>> Cell: +49 176 99 83 10 85
>>>> MSN: shari_786pk(a)hotmail.com
>>>> Email: shaheryarkh(a)googlemail.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Muhammad Shahzad
>> -----------------------------------
>> CISCO Rich Media Communication Specialist (CRMCS)
>> CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA)
>> Cell: +49 176 99 83 10 85
>> MSN: shari_786pk(a)hotmail.com
>> Email: shaheryarkh(a)googlemail.com
>>
>
>