Hello David, I can not offer a specific advice to your scenario, but I would recommend to a supported release, e.g. at least 5.8.x. There are several extensions and also bug fixes in the topos and topoh modules done in the later versions.
Cheers, Henning -- Kamailio & VoIP services - https://gilawa.com > -----Original Message----- > From: David Escartin Almudevar via sr-users <[email protected]> > Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2026 07:52 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [SR-Users] TOPOH masking not applied after 408 serial forking from > failure_route in Kamailio 5.5 > > Hi, > > I would like to ask about a possible issue, or maybe a missing configuration > on my > side, when using the `topoh` module in Kamailio 5.5. > > I am using `topoh` to mask SIP headers, and I enable/disable the masking logic > through `event_route[topoh:msg-outgoing]`. > > My current route is very simple: > > ```kamailio > event_route[topoh:msg-outgoing] { > if (!is_gflag(G_TOPOH)) { > drop; > } > } > ``` > > So basically, I only skip TOPOH masking when the global flag `G_TOPOH` is not > enabled. > > The issue I am seeing happens in a serial forking scenario handled from > `failure_route`. > > The initial INVITE is sent to the first provider and TOPOH masking is applied > correctly. If that provider does not reply at all, the transaction times out > with > `408 Request Timeout`. > > Then, from `failure_route`, I reroute the call to the next provider. The next > destination is taken from an AVP stack, and I update `$rd` with the new > destination before relaying the call again. > > In that second outgoing branch, it looks like TOPOH masking is not applied to > the > headers anymore. The call is sent out, but some headers appear unmasked, as if > `event_route[topoh:msg-outgoing]` was not being applied again during the > serial > forking / failure route processing after the 408. > > Is this a known limitation or bug in `topoh` with serial forking after a > timeout, > specifically in Kamailio 5.5? > > Is there any additional configuration required to make sure TOPOH masking is > applied again on the new outgoing branch created from `failure_route` after a > `408`? > > Could the fact that I only update `$rd` from `failure_route`, instead of > building a > completely new `$du` / branch destination, affect how TOPOH processes the > second outgoing INVITE? > > Has anyone seen this behavior before, or is there anything special that needs > to > be done when using `topoh` together with serial forking / `failure_route` > rerouting? > > Thanks in advance. > david escartin > __________________________________________________________ > Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions -- sr- > [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the > sender! __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
