search for: rount

Hello List We are trying to redirect calls directly, instead of opening a new channel and dialing out. Etc: A calls B on our asterisk, and is directly redirected to C We have been told that this feature should be available on a PRI level, and is called Partial re-routing. Anybody has an idea of whether this is supported in Asterisk? Kind Regards Jon Sch?pzinsky Detele. No virus found in

Hello everyone, I''ve recently switched from CakePHP to rails. In CakePHP there is a feature called admin routing where your route would look like: /admin/controller/action/ which would map to a method admin_action() in the specified controller. Is something like this available in Rails as well or would I always have to create a separate controller? thanks for your help Marc

...er, making the third field truly optional. Why create them one way, and round-trip to bitcode another way? 2. Make the third field *required*. This primarily means: - changing `appendToGlobal?tors()` (etc.?) to add the third field immediately instead of waiting for a bitcode rount-trip and - rejecting the two-field version in .ll. This is another way of removing the inconsistency. 3. Straw man: upgrade to the three-field version in BitcodeWriter when preserving use-list order (or predict how the use-lists of `i8* null` will be affected by the upgrade)....

...e them one way, and round-trip to > > bitcode another way? > > > > 2. Make the third field *required*. This primarily means: > > > > - changing `appendToGlobal?tors()` (etc.?) to add the third field > > immediately instead of waiting for a bitcode rount-trip and > > - rejecting the two-field version in .ll. > > > > This is another way of removing the inconsistency. > > > > I have a small preference for 2, but just because it makes the current > IR definition simpler. Reid implemented the auto upgrade, so he...

...re will be able to shed some light on my doubts. I have set up a firewall using kernel 2.6.15 (Debian) that does NAT for 100 clients, and uses two different ISPs, using the howto found at http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html. I have *not* patched my kernel. The rounting setup is taken from the howto, and it basically works, I see packets flowing out of both WAN interfaces, and everyting seems to work properly for packets that are generated from the firewall itself. I have set up NAT rules in postrouting table, this way: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $W...

...ne that need to be able to map a share on a server that is outside its own domain. We can ping the other server but can not map to the share. Windows 2000 is able to map to this share but 95 and 98 can not. Is there a setting within samba that we need to set in order set the rounting so that we can map to this drive or is the problem with 95 and 98. Hope all this makes sense and thanks for any help. Steve

...t;>> bitcode another way? >>>> >>>> 2. Make the third field *required*. This primarily means: >>>> >>>> - changing `appendToGlobal?tors()` (etc.?) to add the third field >>>> immediately instead of waiting for a bitcode rount-trip and >>>> - rejecting the two-field version in .ll. >>>> >>>> This is another way of removing the inconsistency. >>>> >>> >>> I have a small preference for 2, but just because it makes the current >>> IR definit...

Hi to the ML. I''m new to VLAN configuration, and combining it to XEN is a bit difficult. I want to use VLAN because it''s possible to "arping" from a domU to an other, and VLAN looks like; the only solution to prevent that. May be I''m wrong if someone got a solution, I may be interrested. I''ve also tryed ebtables, but nothing to prevent arp