Re: [SR-Users] accounting serial forked transactions with 302 from LCR

2011-01-25 Thread thrillerbee
Alex, Are you referring to the modparam that would include accounting CANCELs? If so, no - I'm not doing that because I don't want to account the CANCEL transaction. I only wish to account the INVITE transaction final response (487). I have found that I can force a 487 response back to the

Re: [SR-Users] $ua in on_reply route not set?

2011-01-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 1/24/11 9:46 AM, Bernhard Suttner wrote: Hi, found the problem. The device does sometimes use User-Agent and sometimes Server. Is it better to use $hdr() or the Search() function? $hdr() should be faster and more accurate result, working as well with short names for headers --

Re: [SR-Users] [kamailio-users] kamailio on amazon

2011-01-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, if everything is working fine with the audio, then just ignore the tcpdump warning, since it may capture the packets before the checksum was actually computed in the system. With some network cards you'd have to disable hardware checksum to get rid of those warnings. again, afaik, it

Re: [SR-Users] accounting serial forked transactions with 302 from LCR

2011-01-25 Thread thrillerbee
Will this kind of application require the multi_leg_info modparam for the acc module? I didn't have to use it with OpenSIPS, but I'm running out of ideas with Kamailio. Thanks, Ryan On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, thrillerbee thriller...@gmail.com wrote: Alex, Are you referring to the

Re: [SR-Users] fix_nated_sdp()

2011-01-25 Thread Carsten Bock
Hi Bernhard, have you checked the SDP which is going to and from the Freeswitch-Server? Is it modified? If yes: You may want to check your NAT-Firewall. A working (but not nice) solution might be to relay the RTP through an proxy in this case... If No: Verify the result of nat_uac_test: Why is

Re: [SR-Users] fix_nated_sdp()

2011-01-25 Thread Bernhard Suttner
Hi, thanks for your answer. The question was about, if the fix_nated_sdp() (in the example below) could maybe break something. I am sure, that the fix_nated_sdp() would work in some cases but I am not sure, if the function could break something: if (method==INVITE has_sdp()

Re: [SR-Users] fix_nated_sdp()

2011-01-25 Thread Bernhard Suttner
Hi, thanks for your response. I think I understand the scenario very good - but im not so familiar with the fix_nated_sdp() functionality. Currently the SDP will be modified with the source IP of the message. This does work good but currently I only do that for some special devices (matching