Re: [Serusers] Tags, forwarding, redirects, and picky UACs

Bogdan-Andrei, Can you please give me a hint as to how to remove the tag? I've can do something like: onreply_route[1] { if ( (status=~"180") ) { replace( ";tag=.*", "" ); }; } but this would remove the tag from all headers. I could add "From:" into the regular expression, but this would then remove the whole From header. Alistair Cunningham, Integrics Ltd, +44 (0)7870 699 479 http://integrics.com/ Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > According to RFC 3261, the UAC *must* drop any To-tag received in a > provisional reply in favour of the To-tag advertised in the final > reply - be this it means not only to accept a final reply with a > different To-tag, but also to use it in generating sequential > messages (like ACK, re-INVITEs, etc) > > So you should report the problem to your UAC vendor. Meanwhile you > can do a trick in SER cfg - use a reply_route to remove the To-tag > from all provisional replies....this will make happy the UAC. > > bogdan > > Alistair Cunningham wrote: > >> I'm trying to implement forwarding to voicemail with a UAC that's picky >> about the tags in the To: headers it receives. >> >> First, I tried the following: >> >> failure_route [1] { >> rewritehostport("192.168.1.1:5060"); >> append_branch(); >> t_relay(); >> } >> >> This failed because the UAC received a "180 Ringing" from the ringing >> Grandstream phone via ser that contained a To: tag. After the timeout, >> it received another 180 from Asterisk (the voicemail system) with a >> different tag. Since it doesn't support forked INVITES, it dropped >> the call. >> >> Then I tried: >> >> failure_route [1] { >> rewritehostport("192.168.1.1:5060"); >> t_reply( "302", "Moved Temporarily" ); >> } >> >> This time it receives the 180 from the phone as before. Then it >> receives >> the 302. Alas, SER has ignored the tag from the phone, and created a >> new >> one of it's own, so the UAC again drops the call. >> >> Does anyone know of a way round this? Can SER be persuaded to use a tag >> it has already received? Can I strip the tag from the To: header in >> one or both of the responses? I'm willing to get my hands dirty with >> the SER source code if necessary. >> > > >