Thanks Richard for the tip :)
Reda
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Richard Brady rnbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Reda
A bit late for a reply but I found your post recently and it helped me
to solve a similar problem, so I wanted to share one possible
solution.
On 21 January 2012 23:19,
Hi Reda
A bit late for a reply but I found your post recently and it helped me
to solve a similar problem, so I wanted to share one possible
solution.
On 21 January 2012 23:19, Reda Aouad reda.ao...@gmail.com wrote:
After endless tests, I tried to replace record_route_preset with insert_hf,
After endless tests, I tried to replace record_route_preset with insert_hf,
writing the complete record route headers. A light started to come out of
the tunnel.
Suppose User A is registered to port 53, User B to port 5060.
In the case of double record route, when A sends an INVITE to B, I
I just tried the record_route_advertised_address(public_ip).
It doesn't add the port number of the outgoing socket.
Any suggestions?
RA
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 15:57, Reda Aouad reda.ao...@gmail.com wrote:
I know about record_route_advertised_address(ip:port) function. If I
understood
When you route through usrloc, there is a PV that should be set - forced socket:
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/pseudovariables#forced_socket
You can check the socket via 'kamctl ul show' command.
If the PV is not populated, check the send attributes:
I know about record_route_advertised_address(ip:port) function. If I
understood correctly, it inserts a top-most RR header with the public IP if
double RR is enabled. But that doesn't solve the multiple ports problem. I
would get in the SIP header :
Record-Route: public_ip;lr=on
Record-Route:
