Contact header

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Contact header

michel freiha
Hi all,

I have opensips running with rtpproxy...rtpproxy is forced for all calls...The OpenSips server send rtp traffic to several asterisk servers...Everything looks great except the IP of the asterisk server that appear on the contact header as PhoneNumer@Asterisk_IP;nat=yes in the SDP of session Progress packet...

My question is there a way to hide this IP from appearing in the contact header?

Regards

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Hi Michel,

You can not change the IP in the contact without breaking the routing of
the sequential requests. It might be possible by using dialog support
for these calls and to store the contact into the dialog and to restore
it later....but it is a manual work.

Soon, a topology hiding module will be available for such purposes.

Regards,
Bogdan

michel freiha wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have opensips running with rtpproxy...rtpproxy is forced for all
> calls...The OpenSips server send rtp traffic to several asterisk
> servers...Everything looks great except the IP of the asterisk server
> that appear on the contact header as PhoneNumer@Asterisk_IP;nat=yes in
> the SDP of session Progress packet...
>
> My question is there a way to hide this IP from appearing in the
> contact header?
>
> Regards
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>  


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 03:44:33 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> You can not change the IP in the contact without breaking the routing of
> the sequential requests. It might be possible by using dialog support
> for these calls and to store the contact into the dialog and to restore
> it later....but it is a manual work.
>
> Soon, a topology hiding module will be available for such purposes.

I wonder why people want to do such strange things ... no matter ..

Also, a "topology hidding module" ? ... for what?, I think that such kind
of "features" are very useless, IMHO.

If people want to hide it's topology, better to use a B2BUA and not a proxy.

--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Jeff Pyle
Raul, perhaps I can explain from the perspective of someone who may benefit
from such misplaced features.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder.  Or, perhaps in these cases, in the
eye of the implementer.  If topology hiding is the only B2BUA-style feature
I need and all my other requirements are satisfied by a proxy like Opensips,
why would I re-engineer my whole system on a different platform?

The good news is many if not all of these features have an "off" switch for
the uninterested parties to throw.  It's not often that everyone wins.


- Jeff



On 8/4/09 3:20 AM, "Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 03:44:33 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>> Hi Michel,
>>
>> You can not change the IP in the contact without breaking the routing of
>> the sequential requests. It might be possible by using dialog support
>> for these calls and to store the contact into the dialog and to restore
>> it later....but it is a manual work.
>>
>> Soon, a topology hiding module will be available for such purposes.
>
> I wonder why people want to do such strange things ... no matter ..
>
> Also, a "topology hidding module" ? ... for what?, I think that such kind
> of "features" are very useless, IMHO.
>
> If people want to hide it's topology, better to use a B2BUA and not a proxy.


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
In reply to this post by Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Hi Raúl,

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 03:44:33 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>  
>> Hi Michel,
>>
>> You can not change the IP in the contact without breaking the routing of
>> the sequential requests. It might be possible by using dialog support
>> for these calls and to store the contact into the dialog and to restore
>> it later....but it is a manual work.
>>
>> Soon, a topology hiding module will be available for such purposes.
>>    
>
> I wonder why people want to do such strange things ... no matter ..
>
> Also, a "topology hidding module" ? ... for what?, I think that such kind
> of "features" are very useless, IMHO.
>  
not really - there are cases when you really want to hide (to the
client) the other end part of the call. Like if you want to secure some
GW (if you expose the IP of the GW, the risk of an attack increases). Or
if you are doing wholesale PSTN termination, you might want to hide the
PSTN providers you are working with (business protection)..
These are some examples, the cases are actually endless.
> If people want to hide it's topology, better to use a B2BUA and not a proxy.
>  
The is partially true - a b2bua is more resource consumption - for
hiding the topology, you do not really need to create a new call, but
simple to hide some information from the messages....something that a
proxy can do in a more efficient way.

Regards,
Bogdan


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Alex Balashov
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:

> for hiding the topology, you do not really need to create a new call, but
> simple to hide some information from the messages....something that a
> proxy can do in a more efficient way.

Albeit, in a way that entirely breaks proxy spec, since the proxy isn't
supposed to statefully hide anything.  :-)

--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Hi Alex,

There was a similar discussion couple of days ago ...about proxies
:)....And the final statement was that opensips is not only a proxy, but
a SIP server : it include a multitude of functionalities - proxy,
application agent, b2bua, presence server, etc... and you can use it

It is up to you how you want to configure :)

Anyhow, this is more a difference between "may" and "can" ;)

Regards,
Bogdan

Alex Balashov wrote:
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>> for hiding the topology, you do not really need to create a new call,
>> but simple to hide some information from the messages....something
>> that a proxy can do in a more efficient way.
>
> Albeit, in a way that entirely breaks proxy spec, since the proxy
> isn't supposed to statefully hide anything.  :-)
>


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
In reply to this post by Jeff Pyle
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 13:03:02 Jeff Pyle wrote:
> Raul, perhaps I can explain from the perspective of someone who may benefit
> from such misplaced features.

> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.  Or, perhaps in these cases, in the
> eye of the implementer.  If topology hiding is the only B2BUA-style feature
> I need and all my other requirements are satisfied by a proxy like
> Opensips, why would I re-engineer my whole system on a different platform?

Maybe because "hidding" module of OpenSIPS is based on a broken dialog
module ? ... that's a good reason for me.

> The good news is many if not all of these features have an "off" switch for
> the uninterested parties to throw.  It's not often that everyone wins.

I know, maybe someday in a near (or not so near) future, I could use some of
that fancy features, by now I prefer to have a SIP-Proxy+Registrar+Presence
on Kamailio (sorry I don't use OpenSIPS) and B2BUA features on Callweaver
GW's



--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Hi Raúl,

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 13:03:02 Jeff Pyle wrote:
>  
>> Raul, perhaps I can explain from the perspective of someone who may benefit
>> from such misplaced features.
>>    
>
>  
>> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.  Or, perhaps in these cases, in the
>> eye of the implementer.  If topology hiding is the only B2BUA-style feature
>> I need and all my other requirements are satisfied by a proxy like
>> Opensips, why would I re-engineer my whole system on a different platform?
>>    
>
> Maybe because "hidding" module of OpenSIPS is based on a broken dialog
> module ? ... that's a good reason for me.
>  
saying that the dialog module is broken is an over-statement - I admit
there are some issues that still need to be worked out in the module
(forking and early dialogs) - see the thread on the devel mailing list,
but otherwise the module is pretty fine.
>> The good news is many if not all of these features have an "off" switch for
>> the uninterested parties to throw.  It's not often that everyone wins.
>>    
>
> I know, maybe someday in a near (or not so near) future, I could use some of
> that fancy features, by now I prefer to have a SIP-Proxy+Registrar+Presence
> on Kamailio (sorry I don't use OpenSIPS
That explains why you have such a good opinion over the dialog module
;). So I understand your statements on the  OpenSIPS dialog module is
done without actually testing it...
> ) and B2BUA features on Callweaver
> GW's
>  
you can do the same think in many ways. Depends of what you aim to do
and how suitable to components you are using are for your purpose - a
B2BUA is a powerful component (and intensive resource consumer) you can
use for changing a header in a request or for doing complex call/media
bridging .

Regards,
Bogdan


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:15:54 you wrote:
> saying that the dialog module is broken is an over-statement - I admit
> there are some issues that still need to be worked out in the module
> (forking and early dialogs) - see the thread on the devel mailing list,
> but otherwise the module is pretty fine.

For what I try to use it .. if it have no support for earsly dialogs and
forking ... it's broken and it's useless (for me)

I wonder how other could use dialog module and other modules that depends on
it with such "limitations" ...

> >> The good news is many if not all of these features have an "off" switch
> >> for the uninterested parties to throw.  It's not often that everyone
> >> wins.
> >
> > I know, maybe someday in a near (or not so near) future, I could use some
> > of that fancy features, by now I prefer to have a
> > SIP-Proxy+Registrar+Presence on Kamailio (sorry I don't use OpenSIPS
>
> That explains why you have such a good opinion over the dialog module
> ;). So I understand your statements on the  OpenSIPS dialog module is
> done without actually testing it...

Your are wrong here, both modules have same problems, in fact Kamailio module
have some fixes I have not seen on OpenSIPS one.
I follow and test both projects, I prefer to use kamailio and I port some
modules/fixes from OpenSIPS to Kamailio, so I know what I'm speaking
about :-)

> you can do the same think in many ways. Depends of what you aim to do
> and how suitable to components you are using are for your purpose - a
> B2BUA is a powerful component (and intensive resource consumer) you can
> use for changing a header in a request or for doing complex call/media
> bridging .

Or for doing accurate accounting (and please .. let us not beging that thread
again, each one have it's own oppinion about this ...), or for T.38 support,
or many other things.

We use Callweaver as B2BUA just for PSTN relaying, accouting and T.38 support,
for other things as VoiceMail,VirtualPBX, Conferences, IVR, etc. we use SEMS.



--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:15:54 you wrote:
>  
>> saying that the dialog module is broken is an over-statement - I admit
>> there are some issues that still need to be worked out in the module
>> (forking and early dialogs) - see the thread on the devel mailing list,
>> but otherwise the module is pretty fine.
>>    
>
> For what I try to use it .. if it have no support for earsly dialogs and
> forking ... it's broken and it's useless (for me)
>  
ok - to be honest I'm glad to have feedback - it is important for the
developers to fully understand what are the needs in the real-life platform.
So, there is one more item on my TODO list for the dialog module.
> I wonder how other could use dialog module and other modules that depends on
> it with such "limitations" ...
>  
depends on how "critical" these "limitations" are for them... the early
dialog support is not realy required in all the scenarios where dialog
support is required.

>  
>>>> The good news is many if not all of these features have an "off" switch
>>>> for the uninterested parties to throw.  It's not often that everyone
>>>> wins.
>>>>        
>>> I know, maybe someday in a near (or not so near) future, I could use some
>>> of that fancy features, by now I prefer to have a
>>> SIP-Proxy+Registrar+Presence on Kamailio (sorry I don't use OpenSIPS
>>>      
>> That explains why you have such a good opinion over the dialog module
>> ;). So I understand your statements on the  OpenSIPS dialog module is
>> done without actually testing it...
>>    
>
> Your are wrong here, both modules have same problems, in fact Kamailio module
> have some fixes I have not seen on OpenSIPS one.
> I follow and test both projects, I prefer to use kamailio and I port some
> modules/fixes from OpenSIPS to Kamailio, so I know what I'm speaking
> about :-)
>
>  
I might be wrong as I have no idea how took over the maintenance of the
dialog module in kamilio - it simply out of my interest.
Just to remark that between 1.4 and 1.5, major re-work was done in the
dialog state machine and in the interfacing with TM module (along with
changes in TM module) in order to fix some critical issues related to
dialogs management.

Not sure how much of these fixes were ported into kamilio, but again ,
this is out of my interest.

>> you can do the same think in many ways. Depends of what you aim to do
>> and how suitable to components you are using are for your purpose - a
>> B2BUA is a powerful component (and intensive resource consumer) you can
>> use for changing a header in a request or for doing complex call/media
>> bridging .
>>    
>
> Or for doing accurate accounting (and please .. let us not beging that thread
> again, each one have it's own oppinion about this ...), or for T.38 support,
> or many other things.
>
> We use Callweaver as B2BUA just for PSTN relaying, accouting and T.38 support,
> for other things as VoiceMail,VirtualPBX, Conferences, IVR, etc. we use SEMS.
>  
correct - as said a b2bua can offer a lot of functionalities and its
usage is  justified by what functionality you need. My point was that
for simpler things its better to use simpler solutions - simpler
solutions tend to break not so often as a complex one ;)

Regards,
Bogdan




_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Dan Pascu
In reply to this post by Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
> I wonder how other could use dialog module and other modules that depends on
> it with such "limitations" ...

That's because you lack imagination and because your purpose doesn't seem to
be to have a problem solved or to help solve a problem but to poke around with
a stick.

If the dialog limitations bother you so much, be a chap and lend a hand in
improving it, or simply ignore it if you don't care. But your whining is
useless and helps nothing unless your purpose here is to throw shit over a fan
and watch it splash.

--
Dan

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:07:30 Dan Pascu wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
> > I wonder how other could use dialog module and other modules that depends
> > on it with such "limitations" ...
>
> That's because you lack imagination and because your purpose doesn't seem
> to be to have a problem solved or to help solve a problem but to poke
> around with a stick.

Too hard answer to a simple question, I don't have any lack of imagination,
moreover I'm full of it. I try to follow KISS principles when designing a
system, not only to "try to solve it as soon as possible, no matter the way
and without thinking about future problems ..."

For example, one of the uses of dialog module is to "limit" the number of
concurrent dialogs allowed to a certain user (using some kind of "profiling"
for example), so ... if dialog module does not handle correctly early dialogs
and forking, how could I use it in an enviroment where I could have lot of
UAC's registered with the same credentials? it's imposible, because dialog
module will do a mesh with the parallel forking.
It's just an example, there could be lot of them.
 
> If the dialog limitations bother you so much, be a chap and lend a hand in
> improving it, or simply ignore it if you don't care. But your whining is
> useless and helps nothing unless your purpose here is to throw shit over a
> fan and watch it splash.

One way to improve the module is to let developers known REAL limitations on
other enviroments more than the ones they usualy work on. Testing it's other
way to help ... as far as I know, and that is what I do.
It wasn't my intention "to throw shit over a fan", as you said. Just to let
you know where problems are. This is free software, so it's up to you if you
want to implement it/solve it or let the module as it is now and let others
(like me) fix that part, but you have to be open to criticize, if not ...
better not to expose yourself to the open world.
I don't mean you have to "eat all the people throw you", I just mean that you
have to be open minded.

--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Adrian Georgescu
In reply to this post by Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Raul,

Your recurrent negative comments on this mailing list about things you  
do not even use are absolutely disgusting. Keep your fancy opinions  
for yourself or take them some place else where people enjoy what you  
have to say.


On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:

> I know, maybe someday in a near (or not so near) future, I could use  
> some of
> that fancy features, by now I prefer to have a SIP-Proxy+Registrar
> +Presence
> on Kamailio (sorry I don't use OpenSIPS) and B2BUA features on  
> Callweaver
> GW's
>
>
>
> --
> Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
> Dimensión Virtual
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Alex Balashov
If we are going to have a cultured and dignified relationship between
the Kamailio and OpenSIPS camps, which I assume is the goal of everyone
for reasons of commercial self-preservation if nothing else, then the
provocations need to stop from both sides.

No, it is not very upstanding to come on the OpenSIPS list only to
remind its members that you don't use OpenSIPS and that Kamailio is much
better.  Whether you think it's true or not, the OpenSIPS list is not
the appropriate forum in which to air that thought;  it's just not polite.

The values and focus of every community must be respected, and this
mailing list belongs to the OpenSIPS community and development team.
There's a certain degree of "when in Rome..." that should be obeyed.

I'm a very committed Debian user, and intensely dislike Redhat-derived
distributions.  But if I am on a mailing list centered chiefly around
Fedora, CentOS, RHEL, etc. or products based on them, it's just not my
place to bring up Debian or invite an RH vs. Debian flame war.  That's
just not what the list is for, and my ability to join it and ask a
question is a privilege, not a right.

That having been said, the provocations need to stop from both sides as
I said above.  That includes tongue-in-cheek comments that imply
Kamailio defects or fundamental technical or political inferiorities, or
ones that attempt to explain user perceptions of OpenSIPS in an ad
hominem manner by way of some kind of Kamailio affiliation or anything
like that.

Just don't do it.  It's bad for business, it's bad for both products,
it's bad for everyone.  NOBODY wins if commercial adopters see this kind
of petty bickering and egotism, especially from lead developers and
other significant stakeholders in the commercial ecosystem.

--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Thomas Gelf
++

Alex Balashov wrote:

> If we are going to have a cultured and dignified relationship between
> the Kamailio and OpenSIPS camps, which I assume is the goal of everyone
> for reasons of commercial self-preservation if nothing else, then the
> provocations need to stop from both sides.
>
> No, it is not very upstanding to come on the OpenSIPS list only to
> remind its members that you don't use OpenSIPS and that Kamailio is much
> better.  Whether you think it's true or not, the OpenSIPS list is not
> the appropriate forum in which to air that thought;  it's just not polite.
>
> The values and focus of every community must be respected, and this
> mailing list belongs to the OpenSIPS community and development team.
> There's a certain degree of "when in Rome..." that should be obeyed.
>
> I'm a very committed Debian user, and intensely dislike Redhat-derived
> distributions.  But if I am on a mailing list centered chiefly around
> Fedora, CentOS, RHEL, etc. or products based on them, it's just not my
> place to bring up Debian or invite an RH vs. Debian flame war.  That's
> just not what the list is for, and my ability to join it and ask a
> question is a privilege, not a right.
>
> That having been said, the provocations need to stop from both sides as
> I said above.  That includes tongue-in-cheek comments that imply
> Kamailio defects or fundamental technical or political inferiorities, or
> ones that attempt to explain user perceptions of OpenSIPS in an ad
> hominem manner by way of some kind of Kamailio affiliation or anything
> like that.
>
> Just don't do it.  It's bad for business, it's bad for both products,
> it's bad for everyone.  NOBODY wins if commercial adopters see this kind
> of petty bickering and egotism, especially from lead developers and
> other significant stakeholders in the commercial ecosystem.
>


_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
In reply to this post by Adrian Georgescu
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 08:54:27 Adrian Georgescu wrote:
> Raul,
>
> Your recurrent negative comments on this mailing list about things you
> do not even use are absolutely disgusting.

I use them, but not in production enviroments, because they are useless to me
in their actual implementation, that's why I made comments about them.

> Keep your fancy opinions
> for yourself or take them some place else where people enjoy what you
> have to say.

Never ever in my life, you don't have to be agree with my opinions (it obvious
that you don't), but I'll not shut up if I think I have something to say that
could help (I said that dialog module have limitations, I said that I tested
it, so next step is to try to fix that limitations and send a patch, that's
something I have on my TODO)

--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contact header

Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
In reply to this post by Thomas Gelf
 Alex Balashov wrote:
> If we are going to have a cultured and dignified relationship between
> the Kamailio and OpenSIPS camps, which I assume is the goal of everyone
> for reasons of commercial self-preservation if nothing else, then the
> provocations need to stop from both sides.

I Agree. But also thinks that talking about what I consider a big limitation
of the dialog module is not a provocation.

> No, it is not very upstanding to come on the OpenSIPS list only to
> remind its members that you don't use OpenSIPS and that Kamailio is much
> better.  Whether you think it's true or not, the OpenSIPS list is not
> the appropriate forum in which to air that thought;  it's just not
> polite.

Sorry, but I have not come here telling that, what I said at the beginning of
this post was about dialog module and it's limitations, then comented that I
use Kamailio, not OpenSIPS, but I NEVER said anything about one been better
than the other, only that I use the other, just that.

> The values and focus of every community must be respected, and this
> mailing list belongs to the OpenSIPS community and development team.
> There's a certain degree of "when in Rome..." that should be obeyed.

But while "standing in Rome ..." could why talk about that "Fontana di Trevi"
should be cleaned or not ?, because I haven't say anything about not to use
dialog module for other purposes, I told than on my enviroments I could not
use it because it have some limitations, just that.

> I'm a very committed Debian user, and intensely dislike Redhat-derived
> distributions.  But if I am on a mailing list centered chiefly around
> Fedora, CentOS, RHEL, etc. or products based on them, it's just not my
> place to bring up Debian or invite an RH vs. Debian flame war.  That's
> just not what the list is for, and my ability to join it and ask a
> question is a privilege, not a right.

I Agree with you, but again I think that I have not begin any flame war,
appart from the one about dialog module. I have not said nothing about other
features/bugs, was only talking about dialog module.

> Just don't do it.  It's bad for business, it's bad for both products,
> it's bad for everyone.  NOBODY wins if commercial adopters see this kind
> of petty bickering and egotism, especially from lead developers and
> other significant stakeholders in the commercial ecosystem.

Full Agree.

--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users