Well, I found problem. The resumed INVITE transaction was sent to LOCATION route instead of RELAY. However I see another problem now - t_relay() attempts to send resumed transaction to bad destination address. Jan 2 13:41:37 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[18186]: ERROR: tm [../../forward.h:227]: msg_send(): tcp_send failed Jan 2 13:41:37 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[18186]: ERROR: tm [t_fwd.c:1608]: t_send_branch(): ERROR: t_send_branch: sending request on branch 0 failed Jan 2 13:41:37 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[18186]: ERROR: sl [sl_funcs.c:387]: sl_reply_error(): ERROR: sl_reply_error used: Unfortunately error on sending to next hop occurred (477/SL) I tried to workaround it with t_relay_to_udp/tcp/tls(ip, port) However kamailio reports function t_relay_to_udp: parameter 1 is not constant The problem line is: if (!t_relay_to_udp($var(rr_ip), $var(rr_port))) sl_reply_error(); Does it mean t_relay_to_udp() accepts only constant values? On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Dmytro Bogovych &lt;dmytro.bogovych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Greetings. > I'm trying to adopt kamailio to handle incoming calls / generate push > notifications for softphone running on Windows Phone 8. > Starting point was this publication > http://www.kamailio.org/events/2014-KamailioWorld/day2/26-Daniel-Constantin… > > I adopted the script from publication a bit - now notification URI is > extracted from REGISTER messages + INVITE transactions are not > resuming when unregistering happens. > > However it does not work for me yet. > I see the suspicious output in kamailio log when softphone registers > after incoming push notification. > Please ignore ERROR: level name - it is just dirty logging call, not > real problem. > > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: ERROR: > <script>: resuming trasaction [40951:63820139] dbogovych > (40951:63820139) > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: tm > [t_lookup.c:1635]: t_lookup_ident(): DEBUG: t_lookup_ident: > transaction found > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:181]: lookup(): contact for [dbogovych] found by > address > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:327]: lookup(): instance is 90211984 > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:327]: lookup(): instance is 91061218 > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:327]: lookup(): instance is 91229062 > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:327]: lookup(): instance is 90750343 > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:327]: lookup(): instance is 87612750 > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: DEBUG: > registrar [lookup.c:327]: lookup(): instance is 91841578 > Dec 17 14:20:11 voipobjects /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[29652]: WARNING: > tm [t_lookup.c:1537]: t_unref(): WARNING: script writer didn't release > transaction > > Can this "script writer didn't release transaction" be the problem? > > Thank you :)