Hello Sergiu I assum you are trying to reduce the packet size right ? How benefit is removing one header ?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 8:34 PM Sergiu Pojoga <pojo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Precisely what I need, thanks Daniel. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:59 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla < > mico...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> no need to arm onreply_route[x] for all requests, you can just define: >> >> reply_route { >> >> ... >> >> } >> It is the the equivalent of request_route, but for handling the replies >> received by kamailio. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> On 12.09.18 18:20, Sergiu Pojoga wrote: >> >> That did the trick, sorry to have bothered. >> >> All that was to put SIP on a strict diet, as suggested by Alex in his >> article >> <http://www.evaristesys.com/blog/sip-udp-fragmentation-and-kamailio-the-sip-header-diet/> >> . >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:50 AM Sergiu Pojoga <pojo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Joel. >>> >>> Yes, and it works fine, but only for the INVITE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE methods >>> or otherwise if I remove the *if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE"))* >>> statement entirely, which will arm the *onreply_route* for all types of >>> methods, e.g. OPTIONS or REGISTER, consequently go to NATMANAGE, which >>> isn't strictly necessary for all methods. >>> >>> My dilema is mainly how to distinguish them within the same >>> *onreply_route* block. Or may be I can put an *else* to the >>> if(is_method()) and arm a different *onreply_route* for the sole >>> purpose of *remove_hf()*... let me see. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:20 AM Joel Serrano <j...@textplus.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't know if I understood correctly, but have you tried just adding >>>> the remove_hf("User-Agent") in the onreply_route just as you did in >>>> the request_route? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Sergiu Pojoga <pojo...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi there, >>>>> >>>>> Say I need to remove_hf("User-Agent") for all requests, back and >>>>> forth. So I add it at the top of *request_route *section. However, >>>>> replies don't seem to be affected by it. >>>>> >>>>> Do I really need to arm a *t_on_reply route* for this simple purpose? >>>>> "Problem" with that is that *route[RELAY]* already has some >>>>> *onreply_route* block doing things like *NATMANAGE *for some methods >>>>> and as far as I know - only one* onreply_route* can be armed for a >>>>> request? >>>>> >>>>> route[RELAY] { >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE")) { >>>>> if(!t_is_set("onreply_route")) t_on_reply("MANAGE_REPLY"); >>>>> } >>>>> t_relay(); >>>>> >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] { >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> route(NATMANAGE); >>>>> >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Any suggestions? Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>>>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org >>>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org >>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing >> Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> >> >> -- >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- >> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> Kamailio World Conference -- www.kamailioworld.com >> Kamailio Advanced Training, Nov 12-14, 2018, in Berlin -- www.asipto.com >> >> _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users