Greetings,
I have a Kamailio proxy with uac_replace for To and From Headers. So far
everything has worked correctly.
However, I now have a client who encodes my Calling Number too and I'm
getting some issues in the restore mechanics. I have the restore setup as
"auto" and it's info is stored in "vsf" and "vst" parameters of
Record-Route.
On replies sent by my client I have the following Record-Route and From
Header (Note : My Kamailio has two IPs which makes it insert two RR headers
):
Record-Route:
<sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;r2=on;lr;ftag=99A730303736313103579CC4;tbk_i=1_2_Y;tbk_
o=128_11_Y;vsf=AAAAABgGBAMDAAUBBQAJDndyAwMcHwIdHQsWHwUDNw--;vst=AAAAABgGBAMH
DQgJDQECA3RyAwMcHwIdGgQeHAIFAnVzZXI9cGhvbmU-;did=f74.78e2>
Record-Route:
<sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;r2=on;lr;ftag=99A730303736313103579CC4;tbk_i=1_2_Y;tbk_
o=128_11_Y;vsf=AAAAABgGBAMDAAUBBQAJDndyAwMcHwIdHQsWHwUDNw--;vst=AAAAABgGBAMH
DQgJDQECA3RyAwMcHwIdGgQeHAIFAnVzZXI9cGhvbmU-;did=f74.78e2>
From: "+351411110097"
<sip:I2116446I_500@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=99A730303736313103579CC4
In this case the restore is done correctly
When the client sends me a BYE request I have the following Route Header and
To Header
Route :
<sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;r2=on;lr;ftag=99A730303736313103579CC4;tbk_i=1_2_Y;tbk_
o=128_11_Y;vsf=AAAAABgGBAMDAAUBBQAJDndyAwMcHwIdHQsWHwUDNw--;vst=AAAAABgGBAMH
DQgJDQECA3RyAwMcHwIdGgQeHAIFAnVzZXI9cGhvbmU-;did=f74.78e2>,<sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.
xxx;r2=on;lr;ftag=99A730303736313103579CC4;tbk_i=1_2_Y;tbk_o=128_11_Y;vsf=AA
AAABgGBAMDAAUBBQAJDndyAwMcHwIdHQsWHwUDNw--;vst=AAAAABgGBAMHDQgJDQECA3RyAwMcH
wIdGgQeHAIFAnVzZXI9cGhvbmU-;did=f74.78e2>
To : "+351411110097"
<sip:I2116446I_500@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=99A730303736313103579CC4
In this scenario, the To after restore is : To :"+351411110097"
<sip:Q4525417L_<>Gxxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=99A730303736313103579CC4, which
throws an internal error on Kamailio about bad URI and also makes our
MediaGateway reply with a "Bad Request".
Can this error be caused by the restore of the uac_replace mechanics? Both
Record Route URIs are on different headers while the both Route URIs are on
the same Route header. Can this be the reason?
If you need more information please let me know.
Best Regards
David Costa
