Hi Alex,
I had the same problem as you and I couldn't find a way to selectively
reply to via.
What I ended up doing is the following dirty trick...
Before a transaction is created for the processed message I do:
if (SOME CONDITION) {
remove_hf_value("Via[-1].rport");
msg_apply_changes();
}
For sure it would be better to be able to selectively set the reply_to_via
behavior.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Federico
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com>
wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 10:55 AM, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>
> force_rport seems to override any rport available in via, so reply_to_via
>> has no additional effects.
>>
>
> Thanks, that was helpful. But so, if force_rport() is not used, do I need
> reply_to_via=1 in order to have replies go back to the declared port in the
> Via rather than the received source port (as would be mandated by the
> presence of client-injected rport)?
>
> As for trusting client headers, I strongly agree. Unfortunately, sometimes
> business requirements collide with our philosophies.
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 (direct) / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
