gt;>
>>> My config:
>>>
>>> http://pastebin.com/BYn4g5ur
>>>
>>> Do I need to have a mechanism to deal with a 486 form the carrier?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> JR
>>> --
>>> JR Richardson
>
y config:
http://pastebin.com/BYn4g5ur
Do I need to have a mechanism to deal with a 486 form the carrier?
Thanks.
JR
--
JR Richardson
Engineering for the Masses
--
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:52:21 -0500
From: Alex Balashov
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] noack an
----
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:52:21 -0500
> From: Alex Balashov
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] noack and t_relay erros errors
> To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
> Message-ID: <4cdc1f45.1000...@evaristesys.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8
On 11/11/2010 11:52 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
2. Yes. throw an append_branch() into your failure route.
To expand on this; the proxy can't just arbitrarily t_relay() again
after it has received a final negative reply. That's not what proxies
do. The only way it can happen is if a proxy use
1. One problem may be that you are calling route[RELAY] from your
failure route and using sl_send_reply(). The route[RELAY] is still
being invoked in a failure route execution context, even if you have
managed to contextually invoke another route, or subroutine if you will.
Stateless replies
Hi All,
I'm still getting these errors and I'm struggling to resolve the
problem. I think I'm missing an append_branch or something simple in
my config, a little guiedance will be appriciated.
The error:
Nov 11 10:23:26 sip-router1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[23739]: ERROR: tm
[t_fwd.c:1379]: ERRO
