Yes, devices behind NAT are not having replies processed correctly. Kamailio forgets
they're behind NAT. Without topos loaded, it's able to remember that and handles
the reply correctly.
I've got several IP Phones and Asterisk behind NAT that exhibit the problem. On the
other side is a Metaswitch.
This was the first major difference I spotted, but I've since uncovered further
unexpected behaviour with INVITES. It appears the initial INVITE is forwarded with the
modified headers and then a second INVITE is forwarded that's missing the Contact
header, but is otherwise identical.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1005#issuecomment-281419458