[Serusers] Failover PSTN Gateways

[Ranga]

Adrian/Jan,

I have following setup.

UA--(registered as friendly name - ranga )--ser--PSTN.

For termination, our provider's PSTN GW mandates
Contact header to be the proxy address because we
asked for origination on our proxy. This has become a
problem as original contact of UA is lost at the
server. Subsequent ACKs or BYEs will never reach UA if
we change the contact.

Second scenario where friendly names are not validated
at the pstn gateway. They require a DID to be
mentioned in the From uri.

This kind of specifications keep changing from
provider to provider. Is there a work around for this
without much deviation from SIP?

In any of the above scenarios, origination was never a
problem. We were able to seturi using a module that
reads our user mapping information.

Thanks in advance.
Ranga

--- Adrian Georgescu <ag at ag-projects.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Ezequiel Colombo wrote:
> 
> > Hi Adrian, Jan, this is a good initiative.
> > As a litle contribution i sugest the introduction
> of a "strip" column 
> > in the
> > lcr table and the logic in the module to strip
> digits in the dialed 
> > number
> > before prepend the "prefix". This digit
> manipulation is commonly 
> > needed in
> > inter carrier routing.
> >
> Yes
> 
> > curious: (Adrian): You make the gateway lookup
> using a loop function 
> > that
> > make several selects to db after obtain a match in
> "destination" ???
> 
> Yes because you might have 5 gateways with different
> priorities used in 
> each failure route
> 
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ezequiel Colombo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adrian Georgescu" <ag at ag-projects.com>
> > To: "Jan Janak" <jan at iptel.org>
> > Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Serusers] Failover PSTN Gateways
> >
> >
> >> Yes Jan, if less work the better.
> >>
> >> On Sep 2, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Jan Janak wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 02-09 13:06, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 2, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Jan Janak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just out of curiosity, in the document you
> mention that subsequent
> >>>>> requests (ACK, BYE) go to the same gateway,
> but that is something
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> would happen anyway because the gateway puts
> its Contact into reply
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> record-routing will route subsequent messages
> to that contact.
> >>>>> Do you plan to write any additional support
> for that or did I just
> >>>>> misunderstand the text ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes there will be some additional support to
> make sure same route si
> >>>> followed regardless of how the phone
> (mis)behaves.
> >>>
> >>>   What does that mean ? Record-routing will do
> the job for you and if
> >>> it
> >>>   is broken in the phone then there is a really
> high chance that it
> >>> will
> >>>   have severe interoperability problems, so why
> bother with storing
> >>>   additional session state ?
> >>>
> >>>     Jan.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Serusers mailing list
> >> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush