Hi, and thank's for your reply. OK, I'll adjust my failure_route logging. Regarding my second question, it turns out that my syslog was printing out xlog's in wrong sequence.....or the childrens. I'm logging all my checks, and the xlog message for the ACK from gw (before the next INVITE) came right after the INVITE.....

Sorry about that. br hw On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 14:45 +0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Hello, > > On 12/09/05 20:53, Helge Waastad wrote: > >> Hi, >> I was just wondering if there has been any changes to the pseudo >> variables? >> >> I receive a 302 with a new contact address, >> however if I print out in the failure router $ct I get the $from..... >> >> > in the failure_route block is processed the original INVITE, not the 302 > reply. > >> br hw >> >> PS, another thing I've realized now, is that I have a problem solving >> the new INVITE after a redirect. >> Since the new INVITE after redirect has the same call-id, does that mean >> that all flags etc is kept and still are valid? >> >> > If you handle the redirect on server using the uac_redirect module, then > the flags are kept. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > >> For instance; >> INVITE: xxx@<cisco-gw> -> yyy@<domain> >> REDIRECT: <- 302 Contact: zzz@<domain> >> NEW INVITE xxx@<cisco-gw> -> zzz@<domain> >> >> I have a : if (uri=~"^sip:yyy@.*") in the beginning of my script and it >> return true on the new INVITE.. >> >> Is this right? >> >> >> br hw >> >> >> >>