On 19.07.17 10:44, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: > >> 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)? > Thanks for your reply. Yes it is: > > In the first INVITE: > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > x.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bKa049.25c648aa425f43b7b2382d86a63054bb.0;i=1. > > In the second INVITE: > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > x.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bKa049.25c648aa425f43b7b2382d86a63054bb.1;i=1. > > OK, so it is creating a new branch structure. That could explain why the branch flags from previous INVITE are not there. If it is only the branch flags missing (and the headers changes are already propagated), I expect to be an easy patch. I will look into it very soon if nobody else does it meanwhile.
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
