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
Hi again,
Sorry, false alarm... We had a patch which disabled the callback from dialog to RR.
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
*Kristian Høgh*
Telefon: 4422 8822 support@uni-tel.dk[1]
Gydevang 19 | 3450 Allerød www.uni-tel.dk [2]
-------- [1] mailto:support@uni-tel.dk [2] http://www.uni-tel.dk
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
Hi,
I hope the correct solution to the problem is to add RR parameters on sequential requests. The attached patch restores vsf=, vst= and did=.
Dragons ahead, so far it works for me.
Regards, Kristian Høgh Uni-tel A/S
On Friday 27 November 2015 14:07:08 Kristian F. Høgh wrote:
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
Hello,
thanks for the patch, can you make a pull request on github -- it is easier to review and merge. Don't forget to format the commit message as per guidelines from the wiki.
- https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/devel/github-contributions
Cheers, Daniel
On 01/12/15 11:37, Kristian F. Høgh wrote:
Hi,
I hope the correct solution to the problem is to add RR parameters on sequential requests.
The attached patch restores vsf=, vst= and did=.
Dragons ahead, so far it works for me.
Regards,
Kristian Høgh
Uni-tel A/S
On Friday 27 November 2015 14:07:08 Kristian F. Høgh wrote:
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
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Kristian F. Høgh