-
```
History : http://code.google.com/p/mobicents/issues/detail?id=2991
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com by `amit.bha...@gmail.com` on 15 Apr 2012 at 10:54
-
```
History : http://code.google.com/p/mobicents/issues/detail?id=2991
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com by `amit.bha...@gmail.com` on 15 Apr 2012 at 10:54
-
```
In ISUP there are byte[] like types, which essentially are place holders for
flags. Currently API is crude - it depends on user pass a byte[] and do
checks/sets on each byte. We should have bett…
-
```
ISUP stack now support only ITU standard.
We have to add support for ANSI protocol standard too.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com by `serg.vet...@gmail.com` on 24 Aug 2012 at 11:05…
-
```
In ISUP there are byte[] like types, which essentially are place holders for
flags. Currently API is crude - it depends on user pass a byte[] and do
checks/sets on each byte. We should have bett…
-
```
ISUP stack now support only ITU standard.
We have to add support for ANSI protocol standard too.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com by `serg.vet...@gmail.com` on 24 Aug 2012 at 11:05…
-
```
ISUP stack now support only ITU standard.
We have to add support for ANSI protocol standard too.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com by `serg.vet...@gmail.com` on 24 Aug 2012 at 11:05…
-
```
In ISUP there are byte[] like types, which essentially are place holders for
flags. Currently API is crude - it depends on user pass a byte[] and do
checks/sets on each byte. We should have bett…
-
```
In ISUP there are byte[] like types, which essentially are place holders for
flags. Currently API is crude - it depends on user pass a byte[] and do
checks/sets on each byte. We should have bett…
-
```
ISUP stack now support only ITU standard.
We have to add support for ANSI protocol standard too.
```
Original issue reported on code.google.com by `serg.vet...@gmail.com` on 24 Aug 2012 at 11:05…