| 00:42.21 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 00:48.05 | *** join/#asterisk gschanuel (~gschanuel@200-181-252-244.user3p.brasiltelecom.net.br) |
| 00:55.14 | *** join/#asterisk silverwhitefish (~hidden@47.202.102.10) |
| 01:07.20 | igcewieling | That sounds weird. how would you forward to a mailbox number which exists in more than one context. |
| 01:23.21 | *** join/#asterisk tsal (~tsal@i59F5206F.versanet.de) |
| 01:26.37 | Samot | What find user function? |
| 01:53.05 | *** join/#asterisk mr44er1 (~mr44er@dynamic-046-114-003-105.46.114.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 03:18.24 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 03:42.44 | *** join/#asterisk gschanuel (~gschanuel@200-181-252-244.user3p.brasiltelecom.net.br) |
| 04:04.57 | *** join/#asterisk joako (~joako@opensuse/member/joak0) |
| 04:34.49 | *** join/#asterisk jayjo (~jayjo@unaffiliated/jayjo) |
| 04:45.16 | *** join/#asterisk Ner0Zer0 (~Ner0Zer0@87.253.63.54) |
| 05:32.04 | *** join/#asterisk cryptic (~cryptic@142-196-139-017.res.spectrum.com) |
| 06:28.46 | *** join/#asterisk sinaowolabi (~Sina@160.152.55.235) |
| 06:37.53 | *** join/#asterisk lankanmon (~LKNnet@cpeb4fbe4e331bd-cm9050cadd5190.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) |
| 07:35.59 | *** join/#asterisk jkroon (~jkroon@165.16.200.4) |
| 07:59.30 | *** join/#asterisk jayjo (~jayjo@unaffiliated/jayjo) |
| 08:57.23 | Bullit | the relation spotify uri´s during bitcoin implementation implementation in the rdm euro spangen spaanse polder vareseweg liftoffroad |
| 09:39.45 | *** join/#asterisk sinaowolabi (~Sina@160.152.55.235) |
| 09:53.51 | *** join/#asterisk sa02irc (~mbax@155-079-043-212.ip-addr.inexio.net) |
| 09:56.50 | *** join/#asterisk andrewyager (~andrewyag@114.141.97.1) |
| 10:04.12 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 11:19.16 | *** join/#asterisk ghoti_ (~paul@dsl-rb-64-118-20-119.wtccommunications.ca) |
| 12:13.59 | *** join/#asterisk Jesterboxboy (~Thunderbi@84-115-150-8.cable.dynamic.surfer.at) |
| 12:21.09 | *** join/#asterisk ghoti_ (~paul@45.78.120.26) |
| 13:08.21 | *** join/#asterisk InterLinked (~ambassado@cpe-24-209-155-151.wi.res.rr.com) |
| 13:37.14 | *** join/#asterisk tuxd00d (sid401305@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vztalfrycssjhopb) |
| 13:43.37 | *** join/#asterisk tuxd00d (sid401305@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xjwvgpdxqcbzrivq) |
| 13:45.52 | *** join/#asterisk sa02irc (~mbax@155-079-043-212.ip-addr.inexio.net) |
| 13:52.23 | *** join/#asterisk infernix (~nix@unaffiliated/infernix) |
| 13:59.42 | *** join/#asterisk Snuupy6 (~Snuupy@unaffiliated/snuupy) |
| 14:00.45 | *** join/#asterisk x5eb (~seb@69.63.121.78.rev.sfr.net) |
| 14:01.20 | *** join/#asterisk sa02irc (~mbax@155-079-043-212.ip-addr.inexio.net) |
| 14:04.05 | *** join/#asterisk kharwell (uid358942@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-naoiyvqrnzmlpybn) |
| 14:04.05 | *** mode/#asterisk [+o kharwell] by ChanServ |
| 14:28.19 | *** join/#asterisk ghoti_ (~paul@45.78.120.122) |
| 14:34.19 | *** join/#asterisk bford (uid283514@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ppzfxhvraoebubwp) |
| 14:34.19 | *** mode/#asterisk [+o bford] by ChanServ |
| 15:01.45 | *** join/#asterisk irrgit (~ch33se@192.241.175.183) |
| 15:48.49 | *** join/#asterisk rpifan (~rpifan@p200300d2670495000d4e087aaf7a3bb9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 15:54.13 | *** join/#asterisk akp55 (~akp55@c-73-148-15-31.hsd1.va.comcast.net) |
| 17:00.53 | *** join/#asterisk aness (~aness@2a02:fe1:3103:b800:cd9a:9e7b:d642:33e7) |
| 17:18.02 | *** join/#asterisk cloud9 (~cloud9@c-24-20-48-249.hsd1.or.comcast.net) |
| 17:20.26 | cloud9 | hey everyone, I've used alot of different phones with asterisk. I notice that the hold button "just works". Like there's no extension it dials right? I have a use case where I was to disable the hold button. Or reprogram it to park the call. The phone I'm using in this case in Grandstream GRP series. Their support says that the hold buttin can't be modified or disabled currrently. |
| 17:20.45 | cloud9 | I have a MPK that's being used to park calls, but the hold button is confusing the end users |
| 17:21.09 | cloud9 | is there a way in the dialplan I can reprogram with way the hold function will work? |
| 17:21.19 | file | no |
| 17:21.28 | cloud9 | dang |
| 17:38.01 | *** join/#asterisk sawgood (~sawgood@unaffiliated/sawgood) |
| 18:52.17 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 19:08.33 | *** join/#asterisk rpifan (~rpifan@p200300d267049500c048fadfe47f28d4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 19:12.24 | *** join/#asterisk life_of_e (~life_of_e@108-95-189-245.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) |
| 19:16.59 | *** join/#asterisk sa02irc (~mbax@155-079-043-212.ip-addr.inexio.net) |
| 19:22.52 | *** join/#asterisk gschanuel (~gschanuel@200-181-252-244.user3p.brasiltelecom.net.br) |
| 19:23.14 | *** join/#asterisk sysgrammer_moe (~sysgramme@d50-117-157-138.yt.northwestel.net) |
| 19:23.25 | *** join/#asterisk sysgrammer (~sysgramme@d205-234-59-20.yt.northwestel.net) |
| 19:28.15 | *** join/#asterisk ghoti_ (~paul@dsl-rb-64-118-20-190.wtccommunications.ca) |
| 19:29.31 | *** join/#asterisk sysgrammer_moe (~sysgramme@d50-117-157-138.yt.northwestel.net) |
| 19:44.46 | *** join/#asterisk sysgrammer_moe (~sysgramme@d50-117-157-138.yt.northwestel.net) |
| 19:44.58 | *** join/#asterisk cation21- (cation21@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/cation21) |
| 19:57.27 | *** join/#asterisk andrewya_ (~andrewyag@114.141.97.1) |
| 20:01.42 | InterLinked | For IAX2 encryption, is there supposed to be a secret provided (like with MD5)? It doesn't seem to work with or without one. |
| 20:03.22 | igcewieling | sorry, not many people use IAX2 anymore. |
| 20:03.42 | InterLinked | This also seems to be a bug that goes back at least 7 years, with no answer to this question: https://asteriskfaqs.org/2014/04/04/asterisk-users/iax2-trunk-encryption.html |
| 20:03.53 | InterLinked | Wondering if anyone has an example of a working config or I should file a bug report |
| 20:04.34 | InterLinked | Yeah, I've heard that before, too, what's the big deal with IAX2? |
| 20:04.53 | InterLinked | Seems like a superior protocol to SIP and other IP protocols in several respects |
| 20:04.59 | file | SIP won and sees widespread use. |
| 20:05.13 | InterLinked | For trunking though, IAX2 seems technically superior |
| 20:05.21 | InterLinked | With things like trunk=yes and easy encryption |
| 20:05.31 | InterLinked | Also, firewall friendly |
| 20:05.51 | Samot | It was never widely adopted. |
| 20:06.24 | InterLinked | Yeah, I can see that. I only see it used between Asterisk switches for trunking. SIP or DAHDI for the endpoints off each Asterisk and IAX2 between them. |
| 20:06.26 | Samot | IAX is basically abandonware. No one officially works on it. |
| 20:07.41 | InterLinked | Well, I did find a bug with IAX2 back in November or December that caused Asterisk to crash entirely, so I'm just wondering if this is likely to be another bug with something not working right (maybe likely if it's mostly abandoned) or if I'm just doing something wrong here. |
| 20:08.06 | file | could be either. |
| 20:09.23 | InterLinked | Well, until someone can correct me on this, would it be acceptable to file it as a bug then? That's what it's looking like more and more |
| 20:09.37 | InterLinked | It certainly doesn't seem to work as described |
| 20:09.39 | file | you can, it'll just get triaged |
| 20:09.43 | file | unlikely to ever be touched |
| 20:11.07 | InterLinked | Hmm... nobody knows *anyone* familiar with IAX2? Without a secret, I could pin down the exact line in the code it was hitting but it's not immediately clear what causes that just looking at it: https://github.com/asterisk/asterisk/blob/master/channels/chan_iax2.c#L10753 |
| 20:11.25 | file | I vaguely recall a secret is required for encryption, as it's used as keying material |
| 20:11.29 | file | that's the extent of what I remember |
| 20:11.43 | InterLinked | For MD5, yeah, but for RSA, isn't the private key / public key pair the secret? |
| 20:11.58 | InterLinked | Without a secret, I get hangup cause code 50, with a secret, it's hangup cause code 0 |
| 20:12.00 | file | pretty sure it was never implemented for RSA |
| 20:12.20 | InterLinked | okay, so no secret would be the way to go for RSA, then? |
| 20:12.38 | file | encryption=yes isn't supported for no secret, or RSA |
| 20:12.44 | file | it's MD5 or plaintext secret |
| 20:13.42 | InterLinked | Isn't it no encryption for no secret and plain text, and MD5/RSA for encryption? |
| 20:13.53 | InterLinked | Encryption doesn't work with plain text authentication |
| 20:14.08 | file | according to the code it does, whether that is accurate or not I don't know |
| 20:14.29 | file | media encryption, according to the code, only works on MD5 or plaintext configured secret |
| 20:14.50 | InterLinked | It's not, I tested it and it didn't work, so I moved to MD5 which was better anyways. Plain text encryption would be like SRTP without using TLS |
| 20:15.12 | InterLinked | MD5 has been working fine for a while now, just trying to improve security by bumping up to RSA. |
| 20:15.49 | file | then use of RSA means no media encryption |
| 20:15.55 | InterLinked | So, if that's the case, what's the point of RSA existing with IAX2, then? That doesn't make any sense to me |
| 20:16.08 | file | it predates media encryption, it's used for authentication of the call |
| 20:20.58 | InterLinked | Well, I see what you're talking about in the code. PT encryption didn't work when I tried it, so I could file a separate bug on that, but PT is also deprecated in IAX2 and there's no good reason to use it over MD5 from what I can tell, so I don't care that much about that to be honest. |
| 20:21.07 | InterLinked | Do you think it would be easy to add encryption support for RSA? |
| 20:21.22 | file | I have no idea, probably not? |
| 20:21.45 | Samot | So why can't you use SIP? |
| 20:23.47 | InterLinked | 1) Firewall reasons 2) IAXVAR variables 3) Virtually all trunking is IAX2, not SIP, so it would be incompatible and require everyone change their trunking + SIP encryption is way more of a hassle than IAX2 4) Significantly more bandwidth efficient, because IAX2 can trunk calls, and SIP has way more overhead and wastes bandwidth |
| 20:24.19 | Samot | Riiiight. |
| 20:24.21 | Samot | OK. |
| 20:24.50 | InterLinked | The biggest reasons are the bandwidth and firewall ones. Custom SIP headers could be used instead of variables, obviously. |
| 20:25.04 | Samot | I'm not sure about those either. |
| 20:25.12 | Samot | I seem to have no issues with either of those. |
| 20:25.21 | InterLinked | IAX2 requires just port 4569. No other ports need to be forwarded. |
| 20:25.46 | Samot | OK. |
| 20:25.49 | InterLinked | A separate port can be to forward IAX2 traffic to multiple Asterisk switches. |
| 20:26.04 | InterLinked | So for people operating Asterisk switches out of their houses, IAX2 is a good choice. |
| 20:26.09 | Samot | Asterisk isn't a switch. |
| 20:26.27 | InterLinked | What do you mean? It's a "softswitch" right? |
| 20:26.33 | Samot | No. It's not. |
| 20:26.41 | Samot | It's a telephony engine kit. |
| 20:26.45 | Samot | A back to back user agent. |
| 20:26.49 | InterLinked | Okay, Asterisk server, then |
| 20:27.07 | InterLinked | I mean, I use my Asterisk server as a Class 4 and 5 switch. Not sure what the difference is. |
| 20:27.33 | Samot | One is basically carrier level and the other is subscriber. |
| 20:27.46 | Samot | And switches don't require two channels per call. |
| 20:28.03 | InterLinked | I know what the diff is between 4 and 5, I mean between "back to back" user agent |
| 20:28.11 | Samot | Back to Back.. |
| 20:28.38 | Samot | It means it's Endpoint <> Asterisk |
| 20:28.58 | InterLinked | Wouldn't a local intra-switch call on , say, a 5ESS switch, require two "channels", from A to the 5ESS, and the 5ESS to B? I'm not sure what you mean exactly, just trying to understand |
| 20:29.16 | Samot | PBX systems are back to back user agents |
| 20:30.33 | InterLinked | Wikipeda says "back to back user agent" is a SIP thing. |
| 20:30.56 | InterLinked | For conveying the signalling. |
| 20:31.06 | Samot | OK in the grand scheme of things, Asterisk is a telephony engine kit. |
| 20:31.10 | Samot | Not a switch. |
| 20:31.20 | Samot | It's not designed like a softswitch. |
| 20:31.36 | Samot | Hence the FreeSWITCH project being born. Asterisk devs that wanted more switching features. |
| 20:33.13 | InterLinked | Well, I use my Asterisk server as a "switch", I don't know what to say. It works most or less like a PSTN TDM Class 4/5 switch in many regards. All the CLASS features and basic stuff a PSTN switch would example. The switch is smart and all the endpoints are dumb, just like how the PSTN works. It feels more like a switch to me than a B2B user agent. |
| 20:35.43 | Samot | Well in regards to IAX, if you have a bug then you either need to submit it and hope a community member wishes to take it on or write a fix yourself to submit. |
| 20:36.28 | Samot | Because IAX is like Chan_SIP, it's more or less community supported at this point. |
| 20:43.46 | InterLinked | Yeah, I'll probably go ahead and do that now, would you say 2 bugs (since plain text encryption doesn't seem to work, either) or just combine them both into 1? |
| 20:44.18 | file | the fact RSA isn't supported isn't a bug |
| 20:44.43 | Samot | No, that would be a feature add. |
| 20:46.26 | file | there's also an issue already open for that specific thing |
| 20:51.23 | InterLinked | Is this 20219? |
| 20:51.55 | file | yes. |
| 20:52.15 | InterLinked | Looks like Sean posted a patch for that back in 2014, I guess I should probably give that a go. |
| 20:54.11 | igcewieling | I thought FreeSWITCH was founded by an angry romanian who got pissed off at some developers. |
| 20:54.17 | InterLinked | It does seem to be a relatively simple change, is there a reason that wasn't made the solution? |
| 20:54.40 | file | any history regarding the patch is on the ticket, if it's not in the tree then it was likely never brought up for inclusion |
| 20:55.26 | file | the last comment is certainly a yow'sa |
| 20:55.35 | InterLinked | If I test it and it works, would I be able to nudge it for inclusion somehow? Obviously I can't submit the patch myself. Would that just mean working the patch myself? |
| 20:55.45 | InterLinked | Yeah, I noticed that, but until November 2020, that's how MD5 encryption worked too |
| 20:55.54 | file | it's properly licensed so it could go up |
| 20:56.02 | file | I have no idea when the review would get looked into |
| 20:56.05 | InterLinked | So the same patch addressed for MD5 could maybe be ported for RSA |
| 20:56.21 | igcewieling | file: there isn't an interest in deprecating IAX2? |
| 20:56.23 | file | the further off core stuff you go, the longer it takes because we have to dedicate time generally to have someone investigate/test/look at the old code/etc |
| 20:56.36 | file | igcewieling: I have it on my list but technically legacy Switchvox users may be using it |
| 20:57.23 | InterLinked | I would be vehemently against deprecating IAX2 |
| 20:57.40 | InterLinked | Then again, it seems like everything in Asterisk that stands out as rather nice to me somebody wants to deprecate, just my luck |
| 20:58.14 | file | IAX2 would see more use than the other things you're interested in over all |
| 20:59.06 | InterLinked | Agreed. I agree with you that ADSI, notch filter, etc. are rather niche. I totally recognize that. I just think that to the extent that something isn't in the way of progress or something else, more functionality makes a better product than less. |
| 21:00.01 | InterLinked | IAX2 doesn't seem to be in the way of anything (to my knowledge), and so even if most people don't like it, there's a niche community that loves IAX2 and wants to keep using it |
| 21:00.30 | file | it's not deprecated or marked as extended as of yet. |
| 21:00.43 | file | I also disagree about more functionality - there's a fine line to walk there |
| 21:00.49 | InterLinked | Right, but chan_sip is, so I can see the writing on the wall. |
| 21:00.59 | file | originally Asterisk was that way, and stability across the tree suffered |
| 21:01.05 | InterLinked | Why is chan_sip deprecated, by the way? Is PJSIP just completely better? |
| 21:01.41 | InterLinked | I watched your PJSIP talk from Astricon a couple years back, but I don't think I got the memo entirely |
| 21:01.47 | file | PJSIP is a third party SIP stack used across the world in many devices, it allows us to leverage that project to do a ton of the work, it's also architected to allow us to more easily add things and to maintain it |
| 21:01.55 | file | as it is if you touch chan_sip there is a 90-95% chance you will break something |
| 21:02.33 | InterLinked | Ah, so not so much more or better functionality but much easier to maintain and work on? |
| 21:02.41 | Samot | Yeah, I believe Chan_SIP got to the point that it would require a complete re-do to really modernize it. |
| 21:02.57 | file | there is better functionality, because of the way it was architected it's easier to add good user facing features |
| 21:03.03 | Samot | ^^ |
| 21:03.06 | file | it's pluggable unlike chan_sip |
| 21:03.06 | Samot | Because SRV support |
| 21:03.10 | Samot | Better* |
| 21:03.29 | Samot | Chan_PJSIP acts more like standard SIP stacks than Chan_SIP. |
| 21:03.31 | file | right - proper DNS support, better control over how traffic is associated to configured endpoints, better support for matching incoming calls from ITSPs |
| 21:03.32 | InterLinked | But is SIP in the way of anything, really? Is the only reason it's being removed to force people to PJSIP and get people to stop whining "XYZ doesn't work in chan_sip"? |
| 21:03.44 | Samot | No. |
| 21:03.59 | Samot | In order to do future development Chan_SIP would require a complete overhaul. |
| 21:04.22 | InterLinked | Right, so why not keep it deprecated and abandoned but not remove it, in that case? |
| 21:04.39 | Samot | Because there doesn't need to be two sip drivers? |
| 21:04.54 | Samot | From a stand point of the end user. |
| 21:04.55 | file | abandoned code in the tree does noone any good, and whether I like it or not if something is in Asterisk then there's an expectation that SOMEONE is supporting it |
| 21:05.11 | InterLinked | Isn't that what extended support is? |
| 21:05.28 | file | it means community supported, but noone is actually supporting chan_sip |
| 21:05.37 | file | having it in the tree also increases the footprint for security |
| 21:05.42 | file | which we (Sangoma) have to support and fix |
| 21:05.43 | InterLinked | I mean, one of my chan_sip merges was merged yesterday |
| 21:06.18 | Samot | Because community members are still doing somethhing. |
| 21:06.28 | Samot | If something is submitted and it passes review it still gets added. |
| 21:06.37 | file | I think most people have given up on it after their change caused a regression |
| 21:07.05 | InterLinked | I guess the security stuff makes sense, just trying to understand. My concern is more than I know a lot of rather, um, non-technical people out there, who will get a rude awakening when they upgrade to Asterisk 21 and suddenly all their SIP stuff doesn't work. My exposure even now is basically 99% chan_sip, I know 3 people out of dozens and dozens using PJSIP. |
| 21:08.52 | igcewieling | I switched to using pjsip on new FreePBX installs about a year ago. I switched to using pjsip on all my non-FreePBX boxes to pjsip 2 or 3 years ago. |
| 21:09.28 | file | short of keeping chan_sip around, we've done what we can to notify |
| 21:09.37 | igcewieling | Anything which gets rid of peer/user and uses a sane design is worth switching to. |
| 21:09.57 | InterLinked | It's on my list of things to do, just lower priority than the dozens of other things to do. I'll probably switch right at the end when I have to. At least I know SIP is going away and filed a note of it in my head, unlike most people I know which are completely ignorant of it, happily using SIP until the carpet is pulled from under them |
| 21:10.44 | InterLinked | So true, I think I finally just understood the peer/user/friend different this morning after years of getting them mixed up |
| 21:11.14 | file | you probably still don't, because it's a mess in chan_sip |
| 21:11.22 | igcewieling | ^^^^ yeah! |
| 21:11.28 | Samot | If in three years time you are blindsided by the removal of chan_sip, I guess you should pay attention. |
| 21:11.31 | InterLinked | I was more so referring to IAX2, yeah |
| 21:11.44 | file | chan_iax2 is less bad |
| 21:12.09 | file | people generally don't pay attention, and that extends to companies that build their product using Asterisk |
| 21:12.50 | file | and at some point I just have to put my hands up and go "I have tried, but it is not my job to call you to tell you this stuff" |
| 21:13.06 | InterLinked | Exactly. The new CLI warnings a great addition, though - at least more people should be aware now. |
| 21:13.18 | file | there already was one for chan_sip before that |
| 21:13.30 | Samot | Yup |
| 21:13.32 | InterLinked | Yeah, I know, I was referring to the every module thing in 18.4 |
| 21:13.38 | Samot | And App_Macro |
| 21:14.01 | InterLinked | I have no problem saying good riddance to app_macro |
| 21:14.33 | Samot | Well a lot is going away |
| 21:15.00 | Samot | Module Deprecation - Asterisk Project - Asterisk Project Wiki (https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Module+Deprecation) |
| 21:15.39 | Samot | https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+Module+Deprecations |
| 21:15.56 | InterLinked | Yeah, I've gotten in the habit of checking that more often, I've had a few surprises already. Only thing I care remotely about there is ADSI. PJSIP technically replaces SIP, so I really shouldn't gripe about it, it's not a functionality loss. |
| 21:16.34 | InterLinked | I seem to recall chan_phone is required for some things, but I've never used it. |
| 21:42.09 | InterLinked | When I patch chan_iax2 in 18.4, it doesn't compile, and it looks like the patch is actually patching the wrong parts of the file because so much has changed in the past 7 years that it can't tell where to go. Would I be able to just make a new patch that applies correctly to 18.4 and then cite the original patch? |
| 21:53.44 | file | you want 18 branch, and yes |
| 22:10.59 | *** join/#asterisk gschanuel (~gschanuel@200-181-252-244.user3p.brasiltelecom.net.br) |
| 22:13.00 | *** join/#asterisk Typhon (~Typhon@dslb-088-067-138-213.088.067.pools.vodafone-ip.de) |
| 22:37.30 | *** join/#asterisk overyander (~overyande@50.115.255.72) |
| 23:14.22 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 23:41.37 | *** join/#asterisk gschanuel (~gschanuel@200-181-252-244.user3p.brasiltelecom.net.br) |