VoIP Mailing List Archives

[d at d-man.org]

Ignore this thread. Apparently I was stripping sip: from the prefix. I guess you have to specify sip: before utilizing fs_nat and fs_path variables. My bad. From: Darren Schreiber [mailto:d@d-man.org] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:32 AMTo: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.orgSubject: [Freeswitch-users] Question about bridging calls to a specific URIvia a specific profile Hello, I was wondering, I am bridging a call to a specific URI as follows: <action application="bridge" data="sofia/internal/3032223232@3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip%3As%403.55.66.180%3A7812"> EXECUTE sofia/internal/+17209460000@2.3.4.5 ([email]sofia/internal/+17209460000@2.3.4.5[/email]) bridge(sofia/internal/3032223232@3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip%3As%403.55.66.180%3A7812) 2009-06-22 00:16:15.722872 [WARNING] mod_sofia.c:2687 Cannot locate registered user 3032223232@3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip@3As%403.55.66.180%3A7812 ([email]3032223232@3.55.66.180;fs_nat=yes;fs_path=sip@3As%403.55.66.180%3A7812[/email]) The fs_nat and fs_path info and domain are coming from a previous dialplan app that looked up a user's registered info via sofia_contact. I am replacing the registered user's SIP username with the DID being called (3032223232 in this case) My understanding of bridging a call is that if I specify sofia/profile/URI@domain ([email]sofia/profile/URI@domain[/email]) that FS will use the specified SIP profile to try and connect a call to the URI@domain ([email]URI@domain[/email]) specified. Since the full URI@domain ([email]URI@domain[/email]) was specified, there is no reason to lookup the registered user - the call will just be delivered as a sip call to sip:XXX@domain . However, adding fs_nat=yes;fs_path=XXX seems to cause FS to look in the user directory for a matching user. Why is this? Maybe I could use a better understanding of how fs_nat and fs_path work, but I couldn't find much on the Wiki about them. Does appending them automatically cause FS to look for the user being contacted in the directory, as opposed to just using the fs_path variable? Is this behavior from fs_nat alone? Any explanation would be helpful. Thanks, Darren Schreiber

[brian at freeswitch.org]

bingo!

/b

On Jun 22, 2009, at 4:06 AM, Darren Schreiber wrote: