On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Carrierroute is assigning the correct host address. So I guess that works, but I'm worried about the invite, that is send with ip address of the kamailio, instead of the one assigned by carrierroute.
Do you think the address would change if it could find host address assigned by cr?
Hi Juan,
U 2009/02/18 12:40:51.606688 192.168.50.118:8236 -> 192.168.50.93:5060 INVITE sip:456789@192.168.50.93 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.50.118:8236;
U 2009/02/18 12:40:51.611241 192.168.50.93:5060 -> 192.168.50.118:8236 SIP/2.0 100 Giving a try..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.50.118:8236;
U 2009/02/18 12:40:51.612321 192.168.50.93:5060 -> 192.158.50.114:5060 INVITE sip:456789@192.168.50.93 SIP/2.0..Record-Route:
.118 is the address of your test box, .114 the kamailio and .93 the gateway? Yes, cr should rewrite the request uri to the one in its table. I just tested with a non existing host name on my system (test.box):
Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 49721123456787 was rewritten to sip:49721123456787@test.box:7000, carrier 0, domain 10 Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: CRITICAL:core:mk_proxy: could not resolve hostname: "test.box" Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: ERROR:tm:uri2proxy: bad host name in URI sip:49721123456787@test.box:7000 Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: failure to add branches
Cheers,
Henning