Yes, that's the one, actually it was fix_nated_contact() that was commented out.

Thanks for the pointer to set_contact_alias() and handle_ruri_alias(). I see them already in the cfg here so hopefully they've been used correctly. Tests will tell.

From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [miconda@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 18 May 2015 4:59 PM
To: Darren Campbell (Primar); Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Repeated 200 OK from Enswitch

Hello,

but fix_nated_sdp() is changing the SDP (body) not Contact header. Maybe you had fix_nated_contact(). If yes, you should use set_contact_alias() instead, along with handle_ruri_alias() -- see default kamailio.cfg for version 4.2 for a sample of how to use these two functions.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 18/05/15 08:31, Darren Campbell (Primar) wrote:

It appears the ACK had an R-URI from original INVITE and wasn't using the IP address in the new Contact from the 200 OK.

Commented out a call to fix_nated_sdp(); which resolved this case, now completing a round of testing to check whether any new faults have been introduced from the change.
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [miconda@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 16 May 2015 3:57 AM
To: Darren Campbell (Primar); Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Repeated 200 OK from Enswitch
Yes, you can send me directly, just notify here so I will look in the global inbox, because I check it quire rarely -- I is a lot of unsolicited emails I get there and I have filters for the mailing list, so if no filter is selecting the email to put it in a dedicated folder, it may take ages to look at it if I am not aware of being sent.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 15/05/15 04:51, Darren Campbell (Primar) wrote:
Thank you Daniel, is it OK to send these logs directly to you? I'd prefer to not disclose them to the list.
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [miconda@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 7:03 PM
To: Darren Campbell (Primar); Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Repeated 200 OK from Enswitch
On 12/05/15 10:06, Darren Campbell (Primar) wrote:

Here's the full conversation. Makes me wonder whether the ACK needs to go back to the same host that handled the INVITE or whether it should be returned to the host mentioned in "c=IN IP4 PROVIDERMEDIAIP" in the 200 OK.

You still gave the conversation in one side, towards the provider. You need to get the traffic from caller side as well, which is listening on 127.0.0.1, but it is important to see what that side sends and receives. You have to grab the traffic on lo interface as well.

Cheers,
Daniel
-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com