[Users] 302 and contact address new invites an request header..

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

On 12/12/05 11:04, Helge Waastad wrote:
> 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.....
>   
I am not sure I understand, if you post the sequence of the sip messages 
(ngrep -qt port 5060) as well as syslog messages, maybe I can give an 
answer. Some messages can be printed in different order due to parallel 
processing.

Cheers,
Daniel

> 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 at .*")  in the beginning of my script and it
>>> return true on the new INVITE..
>>>
>>> Is this right?
>>>
>>>
>>> br hw
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>