What were arguments for not allowing calls from permanent endpoints without AcceptUnregisteredCalls=1? SF search engine is not working:( BTW. I would rather think about introducing a new option AcceptPermanentCalls=1. We should keep config and gk behaviour backward compatible to not surprise users that do not track the list:-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey S Pankov" <casper@kbuapa.kharkov.ua> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:01 PM > > I've fixed child-parent ARQ flow in the cvs, but I've found > > it will not help you too much. > > The problem is that your "child gatekeepers" are not child gks > > - they are permanent endpoints, so they do not send RRQ and ARQ. > > Permanent endpoints do not request admission - they open signalling channel > > and send Setup message directly to GK. > > > > To the list: Has this topic been discussed already? Should we accept > > calls from PermanentEndpoints without a need to enable > > AcceptUnregisteredCalls=1? Are there any security issues? > > The feature was requested & discussed several times... > > Yes, we may do so, I think... But the default behavior should be changed... If > we have AcceptUnregisteredCalls=1 we'll accept calls from permanent > endpoints. PublicAccess=1 may be that what was the original behavior - accept > any calls from anywhere. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ List: Openh323gk-users@lists.sourceforge.net Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8549 Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
