On 20 August 2013 20:16, Steve Davies wrote:
> Sorry I didn't write what I meant. But the point was that the OpenSIPs on
> 41.221.230.60 is not doing any Contact mangling.
>
>
>
Oh . I just looked properly and I'm wrong.
Kamailio sends the upstream invite with the Contact still @172.160.230.1.
On 20 August 2013 20:13, Alex Balashov wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 02:11 PM, Steve Davies wrote:
>
> But I don't quite understand your suggestion that the proxy on
>> 41.221.230.60 should route the INVITE per the Record-Route. The
>> record-route only says what path reply packets should take?
>>
>
On 08/20/2013 02:11 PM, Steve Davies wrote:
But I don't quite understand your suggestion that the proxy on
41.221.230.60 should route the INVITE per the Record-Route. The
record-route only says what path reply packets should take?
Record-Route indicates the path that _sequential requests_ sh
On 20 Aug 2013 18:49, "Daniel-Constantin Mierla" wrote:
> the problem with the BYE is that the R-URI is the ip address of kamailio,
> resulting in match for strict routing rather than loose routing (both cases
> are handled by loose_route() function).
>
> My guess of what happens is that 41.221.
