Daniel, Maybe my question is silly, but in this case the contact should remain intact? (I mean in bridge mode). I understand the destination UA should read the Record-route Headers and ignore the contents of the Contact Header, but I think this is not what´s happening.
I'm not using force_socket because the gateway already knows how to route the calls and I'm detecting the outgoing interface before calling force_rtp_proxy with flags. Should I replace the contact using REGEX? Thanks, Uriel On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hello, > > it might not be the solution, because they should route based on > Record-Route headers, not on Contact header. Anyhow changing the Contact > will break the routing, so you will need to store somehow the original > contact. > > You can do manual detection in case you do bridging, by checking the > receiving interface, $Ri is the local IP where the request was received, > therfore you will be sending on the other interface. Are you doing force > send socket to select outgoing interface? If yes, then is where you know the > local ip for sending. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > > On 4/30/10 6:32 PM, Uriel Rozenbaum wrote: > > Guys, > > I'm successfully using a Kamailio + RTPproxy setup in bridge mode with most > of my Gateways. My setup includes two different interfaces one with a public > IP and teh other with the private IP. > > Now I'm facing some slight issue. Some providers won't accept my calls (or > calls will have some strange behavior) if the Contact header has an IP out > of immediate range. > > I tried to use fix_nated_contact() function but as per my topology, this > function will not change the contact header because the IP is already the > one on the interface. > > Example: > U 192.168.200.X:5060 -> 192.168.200.Y:5060 > INVITE sip:111160911...@192.168.200.y SIP/2.0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.200.X:5060;branch=z9hG4bK096baacc;rport. > From: "Uriel Rozenbaum" > <sip:60911...@192.168.200.x><sip:60911...@192.168.200.x> > ;tag=as32794d5e. > To: <sip:111160911...@192.168.200.y> <sip:111160911...@192.168.200.y>. > Contact: <sip:60911...@*192.168.200.x*>. > > U 200.A.A.A:5060 -> 200.B.B.B:5060 > INVITE sip:898960911...@200.b.b.b SIP/2.0. > Record-Route: <sip:200.A.A.A;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=as32794d5e>. > Record-Route: <sip:192.168.200.Y;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=as32794d5e>. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 200.A.A.A;branch=z9hG4bK5222.14fbf4f7.0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > 192.168.200.X:5060;received=192.168.200.X;branch=z9hG4bK096baacc;rport=5060. > From: "Uriel Rozenbaum" > <sip:60911...@192.168.200.x><sip:60911...@192.168.200.x> > ;tag=as32794d5e. > To: <sip:111160911...@192.168.200.y> <sip:111160911...@192.168.200.y>. > Contact: <sip:60911...@*192.168.200.x*>. > > Is there any way to let know Kamailio the outgoing IP I'll be using and fix > the contact accordingly? > I can trigger this change after I know the destination IP. > > Thanks! > Uriel > > > _______________________________________________ > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing > listsr-us...@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > * http://www.asipto.com/ > * http://twitter.com/miconda > * http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielconstantinmierla > >
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
