Hi,
Yes, you're right, there is actually a '+' missing in the reINVITE. For
some reason the number is suddenly on a local format. That will upset Kamailio?
Kind regards,
/Tobias
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:34 PM
To: Tob
Hello,
is there a '+' missing after sip: in the To of the re-invite vs the From
of the initial invite?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 03/11/16 14:08, Tobias wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> This is what it looks like.
>
>
> Initial INVITE after passing Kamailio:
> From: +num_1
> ;tag=SD1sf9001--45026-530b969-77c7543f
Hi Tobias,
so, the INVITE going out from your Kamailio is:
To: .
but the From in the Re-INVITE is:
From: ;tag=SD1sf9099-
32997070347920161028161732.
??
Or is the To-Header rewritten as well on your Proxy?
The remote server should not change the From-Header in the Re-INVITE, but
take the URI fro
Hi,
This is what it looks like.
Initial INVITE after passing Kamailio:
From: +num_1 ;tag=SD1sf9001--45026-530b969-77c7543f-530b969.
To: .
Incoming reINVITE:
From:
;tag=SD1sf9099-32997070347920161028161732.
To: +num_1 ;tag=SD1sf9001--45026-530b969-77c7543f-530b969.
Kind regards,
/Tobias
Hello,
the question is if the value in the step 5 is the same as in step 3, or
the endpoint does further modifications (changing what it received in
step 3)?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 03/11/16 10:20, Tobias wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> The To-header in the reINVITE is changed by the endpoint as far as I
> ca
Hi,
The To-header in the reINVITE is changed by the endpoint as far as I can see
(if I understand your question correctly), i.e. something like this:
1) INVITE from endpoint to Kamailio
2) Kamailio performs uac_replace_from()
3) INVITE from Kamailio to endpoint (From-header modified)
4) dial
Hello,
if you don't provide an ip to the rtpenging manage function, then
rtpengine will use its own ip address -- in other words, rtpengine
changes always the ip in sdp.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 02/11/16 13:57, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
> Yes I also using rtpengine. But not using media param in it. Ok.
Hello,
are the From/To headers changed by the endpoint? Or the are the same as
in the initial INVITE/200ok?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 02/11/16 14:57, Tobias wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
>
> Correct, we're using uac_replace_from() when passing along the initial
> INVITE. That INVITE looks good so it's not unti
