This is just a bad trace output (another question is why it is bad - maybe you need to make clean and recompile everything). I suspect the Setup message is correctly recognized and processed. The problem is rather with configuration- maybe Routing engine does not find a destination for the Setup message. Thomas <thomasj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Could somebody help me with this issue? >Could somebody take a look for that Setup message? >I discovered, that this problem appears also in situation when GK1 >sends call directly to GK2 (no LRQ/LCF, just Setup). > >Does GnuGk support H.225v4? (protocolIdentifier = 0.0.8.2250.0.4) > >I would be very happy to get some help. >I already looked into source codes but I wasn\'t able to >find/underestand the issue. > >Thanks in advance, > Thomas > >Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 1:18:11 PM, Thomas wrote: >T> Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 1:31:52 AM, ray wrote: >r>> On Monday 22 March 2004 17:50, Thomas wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have this topology: >>>> GK1-> GK2 -> GK3 >>>> Where GK2 is gnugk-2.2. GK1 and GK3\'s type is unknown. >>>> GK2 runs in GK routed mode (and I have access only to it). >>>> 1. GK1 is trying to make a call to GK2 >>>> 2. GK2 asks GK3 >>>> 3. GK3 responds with LCF >>>> 4. GK2 sends LCF to GK1 >>>> 5. GK1 sends Q931 Setup >>>> 6. GK2 rejects the call. > > >r>> have you tried to set the hop count to 3 or 4 maybe. >r>> also i have these settings enables. > >r>> ForwardHopCount=3 >r>> AcceptForwardedLRQ=1 >r>> ForwardResponse=1 >r>> ForwardLRQ=always >r>> CiscoGKCompatible=1 > >T> Yes, I have thos options (ForwardHopCount=2). > >T> This problem looks me strange: >T> 2004/03/22 22:37:48.970 5 Routing.h(140) ROUTING >T> Checking policy Explicit for request `e¸a.A. CRV=507 >T> 2004/03/22 22:37:48.970 5 Routing.h(140) ROUTING >T> Checking policy Internal for request `e¸a.A. CRV=507 >T> 2004/03/22 22:37:48.970 5 Routing.h(140) ROUTING >T> Checking policy Neighbor for request `e¸a.A. CRV=507 >T> From this I see that the message type was not recognised, on it\'s >T> place are some symbols (`e¸a.A.). I checked the sources and found, >T> that this is written in case the messageType variable doesn\'t match to >T> any of specified (e.g. Setup). From the received Setup message is >T> seen, that the Setup message was correct (in the meaning of the >T> messageType). But later somehow it went to be wrong. My feeling is >T> that the problem is in policy routing or before somewhere. > >T> Can anybody help me, please? > >T> Thanks in advance, >T> Thomas ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id70&alloc_id638&op=click _______________________________________________ List: Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id?49 Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
