On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:02:22AM +0100, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> I haven't followed closely the entire discussion, but for proper
> clarification, if one needs to add a header to a received SIP response
> that is forwarded, then it has to use append_hf(...) inside on/reply_route.
>
> T
Hello,
I haven't followed closely the entire discussion, but for proper
clarification, if one needs to add a header to a received SIP response
that is forwarded, then it has to use append_hf(...) inside on/reply_route.
The append_to_reply() should be used for SIP responses to be generated
by Kama
Thanks Alex.
And objection duly noted, =) I'll just have to test it out and make sure it
doesn't break any of my other clients.
Thank you,
Jack Davis
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alex Balashov
wrote:
> append_to_reply("Record-Route: \r\n");
>
> But I'd like to advise against it once more.
append_to_reply("Record-Route: \r\n");
But I'd like to advise against it once more. :)
-- Alex
--
Principal, Evariste Systems LLC (www.evaristesys.com)
Sent from my Google Nexus.
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailin
Thank you for the replies, this has been helpful.
So if I do want to go down this road and want to practically implement a
solution, what is the best method of appending additional record route
headers to a 200 OK response?
I guess, specifically, adding them to the 200 OK response that is given b
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:44:31PM -0600, Jack Davis wrote:
> What kind of problems can arise from inserting said header?
Theoretically, none. It should be ignored, as per the RFC. Moreover, the
RFC doesn't _prohibit_ such a header in an in-dialog request, so you are
probably clear to add it. Fun
What kind of problems can arise from inserting said header?
I'm trying to find a way to get a pesky setup to start behaving, of course,
without requiring them to make any changes.
Thank you,
Jack Davis
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Alex Balashov
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:35:10PM -
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:35:10PM -0600, Jack Davis wrote:
> Is the preferred method to also include a record-route header in the 200 OK
> that is given in response to the re-invite?
No. Only initial INVITEs and their replies should have a Record-Route
header. In-dialog requests and their replie
Thank you all for the replies.
I'm already utilizing a record-route header in the initial Invite before
any re-invites occur.
Is the preferred method to also include a record-route header in the 200 OK
that is given in response to the re-invite?
Thank you,
Jack Davis
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:1
For a SIP proxy, the preferred method is indeed to add a Record-Route
In the script, add record_route(); instruction.
Emmanuel
IVèS
Le 2017-03-02 à 20:03, Robert Johnson a écrit :
I seem to recall reading something stating that you shouldn't modify
the contact header - But, I can't find the t
No, Kamailio should definitely not be rewriting the Contact. That is set
by the remote dialog parties only.
If the ACK is being sent directly to the host in the domain portion of
the Contact address, that is because the endpoint is ignoring/not
honouring Record-Route. That's radioactively wrong be
I seem to recall reading something stating that you shouldn't modify the
contact header - But, I can't find the text.
Might suggest adding a Record-Route header instead of re-writing the
contact header?
I'm curious as to what the list has to say about this question, I've
considered doing the
Greetings,
I have a general question about the usage of SIP contact headers in the
context of using Kamailio as a SIP proxy.
[ A ] --> [ Kamailio B ] ---> [ C ]
Node A originates a SIP invite, containing a valid via header and URI while
setting the contac
13 matches
Mail list logo
