The uri.ini config is fine in itself. It just might not match what you want to do. ;-) As the comments say, it was intended as a demo for using SRV records and I don't think you are using those. A lot of people are using Tandberg equipment with GnuGk, so I wouldn't say its generally incompatible with it. Regards, Jan Frank Liu wrote: > Since I am using the sample uri.ini config file from the source tree > for testing on a local LAN without any firewalls, does that mean the > sample config file is no good? or maybe gnugk is not compatible with > Tandberg endpoints? > > Thanks! > Frank > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Jan Willamowius <jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No, thats not a bug in the code: The alias got reduced to 800100010 as > > you can see in the forwarded Setup. > > > > Regards, > > Jan > > > > Frank Liu wrote: > >> Looking at the below few lines from the log: > >> > >> .... > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 4 ProxyChannel.cxx(1868) Q931s > >> GWRewrite source for 10.161.15.6:11062: setup H323 ID or E164 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 2 Toolkit.cxx(675) > >> RewriteToE164: 800100010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 800100010 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 2 singleton.cxx(25) Create > >> instance: PreliminaryCallTable(9) > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 5 Routing.cxx(197) ROUTING > >> Checking policy Explicit for request Setup CRV=29760 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 5 Routing.cxx(197) ROUTING > >> Checking policy Internal for request Setup CRV=29760 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 5 Routing.cxx(197) ROUTING > >> Checking policy SRV for request Setup CRV=29760 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 5 Routing.cxx(197) ROUTING > >> Checking policy DNS for request Setup CRV=29760 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 4 Routing.cxx(616) ROUTING DNS > >> policy resolves to 800100010 @ 10.161.240.234:1720 > >> 2009/10/29 00:12:31.459 5 Routing.cxx(203) ROUTING Policy > >> DNS applied to the request Setup CRV=29760 > >> ... > >> > >> Since the RewriteToE164 already rewrites the 800100010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> to 800100010, why does the ROUTING DNS policy still resolves to > >> 800100010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx? Shouldn't the @ip part already be stripped? > >> Is that a bug in the code? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Frank > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Frank Liu <gfrankliu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Has anybody tried the sample uri.ini file and confirmed whether it is working? > >> > > >> > I am testing the latest cvs code, and for test purpose, I am using the > >> > sample etc/uri.ini included in the source code. EP1, EP2 and gnugk > >> > server all live on the LAN without any firewalls. EP1 is registered > >> > with gnugk and EP2 isn't registered with anything. EP2 tries to dial > >> > EP1 using uri dialing, but it fails. gnugk log says "Call rejected". > >> > > >> > See attached log file. Any thoughts why the sample file uri.ini doesn't work? > >> > > >> > Frank -- Jan Willamowius, jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.gnugk.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________________ Posting: mailto:Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=openh323gk-users Unsubscribe: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323gk-users Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
