On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:27 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:05 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > Actually, I think that's an illusion. I've looked more closely and > > repeated the unit test of the C++ Url class and it seems to work. > > > > I think the illusion is created when the logs are merged - the first > > message that shows as incorrect is the one sent from the proxy to the > > bridge. That message appears in both logs, but only one of those copies > > is put into the siptrace xml file. The frameid element for that message > > is: > > > > <frameId>11 sipxbridge.xml:16965 sipxbridge.xml:17015 sipXproxy.xml:655481 > > sipXproxy.xml:655496</frameId> > > > > my guess is that the order there implies that the copy actually used is > > the one from the sipxbridge.xml file. > > There is also the possibility that "caller id" processing is mangling > the display name, and that is only activated if the request is sent to > sipXbridge. But I'm pretty sure that your diagnosis about merging is > the right explanation.
Nope... if there were a caller-id being set, then we'd be able to see it in the Record-Route header and it's not there (that was my first thought). _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
