No, seems like kamailio complaints "broken reply to forward" about all sip ping replies...
On Friday 29 October 2010, Klaus Darilion wrote: > On 10/29/2010 11:55 AM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote: > > Kamailio 3.1 log is filled with lines like > > > > Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO:<script>: > > incoming reply from udp:188.62.4.186:65333 SIP/2.0 404 Not Found Via: > > SIP/2.0/UDP 204.74.213.5:5060;branch=0 > > From:<sip:pin...@sip.callwithus.com>;tag=3993f0c > > To:<sip:188.62.4.186:65333> Call-ID: > > aff32da5-89ef0136-71dc...@204.74.213.5 CSeq: 1 OPTIONS Content-Length: 0 > > Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO:<core> > > [forward.c:774]: broken reply to forward - no 2nd via > > > > Shouldn't replies to NAT ping messages be silently dropped like in 1.4? > > Yes. But probably kamailio fails to detect that it is a response to a > keep-alive request. Maybe the client is buggy and the message is > malformed. Trace the requests (wireshark or ngrep, tcpdump) and compare > response and request - maybe there is a malformed header in the response. > > regards > klaus > > _______________________________________________ > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list > sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
