search for: 55a

Hello, I have the following situation: A firewall is blocking all SIP and RTP traffic in the side of some of my clients. My clients cannot change settings of the firewall. I need to solve this problem and I need some help from you. I have this idea: implement a SIP user agent which does not use well known SIP ports (uses http port 80 for example) and use other ports that are not blocked

...ket loss,...etc. But, haven't found any formula or arithmetic rule to calculate them. Do you have an idea about their formulas or an open source that calculates them. Is it possible to interpret them from wireshark. Thanks. -- Please discover scientific miracles of CORAN http://www.55a.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20100308/56217ab7/attachment.htm

...t up, some RTP packets are exchanged at the beginning and then the RTP flow stops (no RTP is exchangd). Wireshark demonstrates no problem with SIP signaling. I am using OpenVPN 2.1.1. Has anyone had such a problem. Please help. -- *Please discover scientific miracles of CORAN* http://www.55a.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20100324/1ed8aa7b/attachment.htm

...A NA NA NA ... $ 48A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 48B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 50A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 50B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 52A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 52B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 55A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 55B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 56A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 56B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 59A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 59B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 40A: num NA NA NA NA...

...esn't return anything, so it doesn't even consider .exe to be an extension ? At the same time if I try the same from L:\ (the windows share), I get: ------------------- L:\>dir gdump.* Volume in drive L is DRIVE_C Volume Serial Number is 07CE-0903 Directory of L:\ 11/30/2001 11:55a 1,355,816 gdump.exe 1 File(s) 1,355,816 bytes 0 Dir(s) 12,550,406,144 bytes free L:\>gdump Usage: gdump [-help] <options> filename -------------------- Obviously .exe is seen as an extension in this case and the executable is called. Here are the file attributes of gdump.exe on t...

...4d4: 66 data16 > ... > > -000004e0 <__FUNCTION__.21966>: > +000004e0 <__FUNCTION__.21879>: > 4e0: 61 popa > 4e1: 64 fs > 4e2: 6a 75 push $0x75 > - 4e4: 73 74 jae 55a <__FUNCTION__.22434+0x6> > + 4e4: 73 74 jae 55a <__FUNCTION__.22347+0x6> > 4e6: 5f pop %edi > 4e7: 6f outsl %ds:(%esi),(%dx) > 4e8: 66 data16 > 4e9: 66 data16 > -...

The saga continues. I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs (Are the above two ok?) The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in the

...I%ckjXCokQO?o|wa~ z;oTIruk3LRzVGB3^Yh~@AGhbu74!3#=#yi;8xwfZg~tGAe at Vv+BlO570qdtA`z_M% z&Jdj|m~JfN*rer!U at GI0H_@wzF<GKMxf$p at Pw(px5|jJO?JIxiyV#L at 9Dbu>!Y`w- z+W<k-LizjWWufrcqyShWy<Q97RJxc^1H&BVWFoi^wjsf-XKo95a|6hRm2}*EXg}0l zAq?E*BrP&5pAaKmzE7sa&(@JLvHbqk5fg_9=cE9*55A$Esb~7fqr2a|Y_Xjo2G9i0 z#>cW5C&Iggv29D-*9Ws$VlQ77zF~V*s8^h^@7;;_YLjn_dp79#Z{A~Leq{IZ<u?K& zt)g3q2$#LjZ?R}wFgP^l7d~-c1%kzb at C+}BHyg81aaSVu0pUGFuOd?HpCRElC}e&b z$azBWAJED|*6$j}y<*;Zi$ZuK31UPn%nv3bioRBvio*Z4;6BhRd-$H6_ALAWP5G<} z at BF5YD~h<i&<_?;AFQV9RHvWKH=*@;m_kOH...