Re: [SR-Users] [PATCH] Record-route on sequential requests

Hi again, I looked at the wrong request, when I wrote it was a patch we applied in-house. (I looked at Route: header received from UA, not RR send by kamailio.) RR on sequential requests have no did/vsf, using vanilla kamailio version 4.2.5 as written below. If required I can test later using master. (I tested ealier, but it included our patches, which doesn't make any difference on 4.2.5) The questions still remain. Should kamailio add did/vsf on sequential requests, when I call record_route()? Should I set dlg_match_mode to 1? (I use 0) Is it wrong to call record_route() from sequential requests? Regards, Kristian. On Friday 27 November 2015 12:54:50 Kristian F. Høgh wrote: Hi list, Record-route on sequential requests doesn't have did/vsf parm. On initial INVITE, I call record_route() and set dialog flag. kamailio adds the following RR Record-Route: <sip:ww.xx.yy.zz;lr;ftag=15af612df;vsf=AAAA....;did=4a8.3ca2> UAC sends a re-INVITE, containing the following route: Route: <sip:178.21.251.54;lr;ftag=15af612df;vsf=AAAA....;did=4a8.3ca2> I call loose_route() followed by record-route(), and kamailio adds the following RR: Record-Route: <sip:ww.xx.yy.zz;lr;ftag=15af612df> I've got a phone which updates the routeset on sequential requests (which I don't think it should) and the did-matching fails. Should kamailio add did/vsf on sequential requests, when I call record_route()? Should I set dlg_match_mode to 1? (I use 0) Is it wrong to call record_route() from sequential requests? Which way is the best to resolve the problem? Regards, Kristian Høgh Uni-tel A/S