If you're having to think about how to do things that break basic SIP semantics, it may be time to rethink your design.
More particularly, passing requests from A to B back to A, when A and B are both proxies, is problematic. It will lead to potential call loops if the request should find itself back at the same UA that originated the call. The usual solution is to create a B-leg by laundering the call through a lightweight, signalling-only B2BUA, such as SEMS.
-- Alex
On 27 Nov 2023, at 08:04, Benoit Panizzon via sr-users sr-users@lists.kamailio.org wrote:
Hi List
Two Kamailio Nodes situation.
Node A: Routing Instance. Node B: Registrar Instance.
An invite is sent from Node A to B.
Customer registered on B is 'busy' as example.
B initiates Call Forwarding by adding a Diversion Header and sending the Invite back to A with a new R-URI towards the CFB destination.
The Invite sent from B to A still has Node B in it's Record-Route. So all subsequent SIP messages pass via B, which is not needed and cause issue with rtpengine running on B.
I attempted to remove_record_route(); when sending the call back to A, but this causes:
parse_headers(): bad header field [;lr;ftag=3910078620-883101371>
It looks like only the beginning of the RR header is removed leaving back a competely broken line.
What is the propper was to remove a node from RR and Via routing?
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon-
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden ______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender! Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: