22 Mar
2007
22 Mar
'07
7:36 p.m.
Yes, what is really odd is that they are requiring the "+" to be in the
Request-URI, From:, To: and the P-Asserted-Identity.
So far I have added the following to my INVITE handler route.
prefix("+"); # add "+" to Request URI
subst('/To:(.*)sip:(.*)@(.*)/To:\1sip:+\2@\3/ig'); # add "+" to
To:
URI
I have already found one UA that will require some reply fixing, while
others don't seem have a problem.
- Daryl
On 3/22/07, Jerome Martin <jmartin(a)longphone.fr> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 11:39 +0100, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Daryl Sanders wrote:> I'd love to use uac_replace_to(), but to my knowledge it
does not> exist. I read through the UAC module docs and there is no mention of>
it.> > Any other posibilities?> > If I were to use subst(), can it be applied
it in such a way that it> does not cause problems with the dialog?
You have to catch everys reply and remove the + sign.
Further you have to check all in-dialog requests received from the PSTN provider and
remove the + sign to, and catch every reply from the user's client to add the + sign
again.
Mmmh. In order to prevent this (which is unavoidable if you change the To:
header), you might try to use P-Asserted-Identity header instead. This works
with most modern SIP gateways implementing RFC3325.
*Jérôme Martin **| **LongPhone*
*Responsable Architecture Réseau*
122, rue la Boetie | 75008 Paris
Tel : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 44
Fax : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 45
Mail : *jmartin*(a)longphone.fr
Web : www.longphone.com