Hi ,
In Ser's Makefile.defs , originally , it define PKG_MALLOC , SHM_MEM ,
SHM_MMAP ,for shared memory,
and I would like to marked it , cause i want to try let it not use shared
memory
(and modified ser.cfg let it just produce one main parent process )
I tried marked those three definitions , but it has error when compile ,
it seems some modules still need functions which only exist when those three
definitions is defined,
do those three definitions can't marked?
or in ser , it can't work without using shared memory , can't mark those
definition?
Thanks ,
Jimmy
On 23-04 19:35, Dinesh wrote:
>
> Yes I do have "fork-yes"
>
> In cfg
>
> Should I change it to no?
No. Send us your start-up script. And please reply to
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org, not directly to me.
Jan.
Hi all,
I want to use a cisco 2600 as sip2pstn gateway. In csico dokumentations and
in postings of other people it seems that the cisco 2600 works with a PRI
ISDN interface. Does anybody konw if it also works with BRI interface? I
don't find a way to define "voice-port" on the router just with BRI
interface. Has anybody here successfully tested this?
Many thanks
Yang
The 'just a BRI' is the tricky part. You should need a
NM-HDV (I think that's the part number), with a 2 port
BRI VWIC.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Fausak [mailto:greg@august.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:51 AM
To: 'Yang Xiang'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] cisco 2600 as sip-pstn gateway
Yes, it works with a BRI interface.
I have experimented with a 3620 like that, the
Same cards go in the 26xx series I believe.
---greg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org
> [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Yang Xiang
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: [Serusers] cisco 2600 as sip-pstn gateway
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I want to use a cisco 2600 as sip2pstn gateway. In csico
> dokumentations and
> in postings of other people it seems that the cisco 2600
> works with a PRI
> ISDN interface. Does anybody konw if it also works with BRI
> interface? I
> don't find a way to define "voice-port" on the router just with BRI
> interface. Has anybody here successfully tested this?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Yang
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
hi, i have been playing around with ser now for around a month and am
getting nowhere.
i have two sites running ser on redhat (7.3 and 8). the ser machines are
each behind a redhat (7.3) firewall with port 5060(udp) forwarded to the ser
machines.
i cannot see presence of any users at the other site and vice versa.
please can someone guide me through how they would set up such an operation.
this really is a hand-holding job i'm afraid.
very grateful for a quick response.
cheers
--
Mat Harris OpenGPG Public Key ID: C37D57D9
mat.harris(a)genestate.com www.genestate.com
Hello,
On 23-04 19:28, Dinesh wrote:
> Thanks for your comments but
>
>
> 1. Could you confirm I would need to change the mysql db manually as
> serctl restricts the group names it accepts
Yes, edit serctl script and look for ACL_GROUPS variable, list the
groups you want to use there.
> 2. Could you give me a clue as to the script I would need to add. As I
> cannot see how to check the called parties groups.
is_user_in("To", "group")
Jan.
I need some help to implement load balance
when sending invites to an external sip
proxy server.
I would like to be able to balance load
between to IPs (10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2) and
use the backup IP when the primary one
fails.
Below is the routing code I have:
if (!lookup("location")) {
rewritehost("10.0.0.1");
if (!t_relay_to("10.0.0.1","5060")) {
sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
};
break;
};
How can I add this behaviour?
Any suggestion?
Alejandro
Hello,
I would like to know whether the current SER is RFC2543 or RFC3261
compliant. It is described to be a RFC3261 server in the webpage but is
specified to be RFC2543 compliant in the product sheet. (I want to use
SER to test with other RFC3261 devices.) Thank you.
Andrew
