On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Vitaliy Aleksandrov
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> We have already came to the same conclusion by some testing in our
> lab. It seems its a bug in provider which not constructing BYE message
> properly.
>
> But i'm interested in if its possible to detect the
Thank's for your reply Daniel...
Best Regards
2012/5/24 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> Hello,
>
> if there is none matching the ip address of the interface, the default one
> is used.
>
> So you can define one like [server:127.0.0.1:5061] just to be valid for
> connections coming on loopback inter
just forwarding from SEMS mailing list an interesting story of using
kamailio and sems in emergency services...
Original Message
Subject:[Sems] sems in risk-of-life service
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:29:38 +0800
From: Jeremy A
To: s...@lists.iptel.org
Hi,
Hi Daniel,
Thanks a lot for your response. We will try the embedded module soon.
In the meanwhile, we found the issue which was related a mistake in the toPath
header parameter.
Cheers,
Alex
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:mico...@gmail.com]
Sent: Freitag, 25. Mai 2012 00:20
To: SIP Rou
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for the reply.
Sorry i have made a typo. If E2E_CANCEL_HOP_BY_HOP is defined then
e2e_cancel() from t_fwd.c calls cancel_branch() function for each branch
it found at a t_invite transaction.
Then if cfg_get(tm, tm_cfg, reparse_invite) is true cancel_branch()
calls build_l
