Hi Ovidiu,
On 18/10/14 00:37, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
Which is bad, it should be the IP of the FS server.
I investigated and I'm not sure this is the issue.
Unfortunately when I named the various addresses it obscured the fact
that the ip address kamailio.int is the IP address of the freeswitch
se
On 16/09/14 15:55, Federico Cabiddu wrote:
looking at the trace, it seems to me that the 407 is not sent by
Kamailio but by the FS1 server ("User-Agent: IMX" in the 407, as for
the 1st 407 sent by FS2), and that you are probably missing in the
trace the messages between Kamailio and FS1.
This s
On 15/09/14 16:03, Federico Cabiddu wrote:
What happens if you call t_relay() after setting $du?
Same result. Kamailio sends 407 to caller, which then creates a new INVITE.
I suspect my configuration doesn't reflect the intent, so I'm adding it
below along with other particulars of the test en
On 14/09/14 20:00, sr-users-requ...@lists.sip-router.org wrote:
In your script snippets it seems
that upon receiving the 302, in the failure route you set the $du and then
you pass the message to a RELAY route, which I suppose sends the 407 reply.
This seems to be the case, yes. The 407 comes fro
Hello sr-users,
We're using Kamailio to proxy to a number of FreeSWITCH backend servers
with the dispatcher module.
In some specific scenarios it matters to which node the request is sent.
In these cases we've configured FS to respond to the invite with 302 and
provide a custom header which
Hello sr-users,
We're evaluating Kamailio to proxy to a number of FreeSWITCH backend
servers with the dispatcher module.
In some specific scenarios it matters to which node the request is sent.
In these cases we've configured FS to respond to the invite with 302 and
provide a custom header w
