5 Dec
2003
5 Dec
'03
5:32 a.m.
At 04:23 AM 12/5/2003, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:48:15AM +0100, Jiri Kuthan
wrote:
config file similarity does not imply that either of them is correct.
As I told previously, your script apparently ignored Route processing.
Why it worked for one telephone and not for some other one may or may
not be related to their use of preloaded Routes, but that's just a quick
guess.
-jiri
SER has always matched against request URI and that's the proper thing
to do. The INVITE above should be processed using Route processing,
as for example in default script.
Testing the same configuration (adjusted for syntax changes) with 0.8.10
and 0.8.12 reveals that the two versions handle the request differently.
With 0.8.10, the request is rewritten and forwarded to 172.21.30.51 with
0.8.12 it is not.