[Serusers] RPID privacy

[Daniel Poulsen]

Hi,

I think I have narrowed the problem down to it being an unsupported feature 
with our upstream provider.

privacy=full yields:
//-1/55BF806C8E6E/SIP/Info/sipSPISetInfoFromRpid: Received ;screen=yes 
;privacy=full -> Setting Octet3A 0xA1, extended_privacy 0x00

privacy=none gives me:
//-1/C4192BDF8F27/SIP/Info/sipSPISetInfoFromRpid: Received ;screen=no 
;privacy=none -> Setting Octet3A 0x80, extended_privacy 0x00
 
My provider is claiming "star codes do not work on digital trunk groups". 
Can anybody verify this as being accurate or inaccurate?

This is getting a bit off topic for this list, so please respond off the 
list from here on out. Thanks!

Dan



On 7/8/05, Ezequiel Colombo <ecolombo at telarsa.com.ar> wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel, can you send a trace of the pstn protocol ? debug isdn q931 or 
> something
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> *From:* Daniel Poulsen <dpoulsen at gmail.com> 
> *To:* serusers at lists.iptel.org 
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2005 8:05 PM
> *Subject:* [Serusers] RPID privacy
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to give my users the option of disabling caller ID if they so 
> choose by dialing a code. I can tack on rpid using append_rpid_hf() just 
> fine, but for some reason my privacy flags seem to be ignored. Perhaps I am 
> not processing them properly?
> 
> One observation:
> 
> I've noticed most people on the list using the format:
> append_rpid_hf("<sip:","@localhost; 
> user=phone>;party=calling;screen=no;privacy=full")
> 
> When use this format my tcpdumps show:
> Remote-Party-ID: <sip:sip:2125551212 at my.sip-domain.com@localhost; 
> user=phone>;party=calling;screen=no;privacy=full")
> 
> I have to use:
> append_rpid_hf("<","; user=phone>;party=calling;screen=no;privacy=full")
> 
> ...to get it to look correct in the headers. This strikes me as odd that 
> everyone else uses the former and I must use the latter.
> 
> I am using ser-0.9.3 (Soon to upgrade to 0.9.3!!) and the gateway is a 
> Cisco AS5350. I've looked as Cisco DOCS and the header seems to be 
> structured properly. I'm sure it is something stupid, but I am scratching my 
> head on this one. 
> 
> Any advice?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050711/3d2d6c2c/attachment.htm>