On 19.07.17 10:23, Juha Heinanen wrote: > I did more some more tests. > > The branch route was properly executed before INVITE to the first SRV > destination was sent. The branch route set some headers, branch flags, > etc. After the first SRV destination failed, INVITE was sent to the > second SRV destination and the branch route was not re-executed. In the > second INVITE, headers that were added in branch route were correctly > preserved. However, branch flags that were set in the branch route were > not preserved. As result, processing of positive reply from the second > srv destination failed. > > This looks like a bug to me. Also branch flags that were set in the > branch route before the first INVITE was sent out should have been > preserved for processing of the second INVITE. > > Is the branch parameter in the top Via of the second INVITE sent out different than for the first INVITE (last digit incremented by 1 or so)?
Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training - www.asipto.com Kamailio World Conference - www.kamailioworld.com _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
