Yeah, Juha's suggestion worked perfectly. As soon as I moved the force_send_socket() call into branch_route everything started working.
Thanks. On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Klaus Darilion < klaus.mailingli...@pernau.at> wrote: > IIRC force_send_socket operates on "branch[0]". Now it depends how the the > new branch is added, e.g. if send--socket properties are copied into new > branch or not. IRRC there were some changes either in 1.5 or 3.0. > > You can also access a branch's aprameter directly: > > http://sip-router.org/wiki/cookbooks/pseudo-variables/devel#branch_attributes > > or try Juha's suggestion with branch_route > > regards > klaus > > Am 28.06.2010 19:08, schrieb Geoffrey Mina: > >> I am having an issue with 1.5.4 where force_send_socket() isn't behaving >> as I would expect. >> >> I have an LCR scenario where depending on which gateway I am sending to, >> I send from a different socket. >> >> It appears that calling force_send_socket from failure_route has no >> affect on the routing. In my initial route block I call >> force_send_socket(X.X.X.180:5060). In my failure_route I am calling >> force_send_socket(X.X.X.179:5060), yet after calling the subsequent >> time, my sip trace and tcpdump are clearly showing kamailio is still >> sending from X.X.X.180:5060. >> >> I have added a lot of debug lines, so I am 100% sure the second call to >> force_send_socket is happening. >> >> Am I misusing this module in some way? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ 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
