Hi again,

I looked at the wrong request, when I wrote it was a patch we applied in-house.

(I looked at Route: header received from UA, not RR send by kamailio.)

RR on sequential requests have no did/vsf, using vanilla kamailio version 4.2.5 as written below.

If required I can test later using master. (I tested ealier, but it included our patches, which doesn't make any difference on 4.2.5)

The questions still remain.

Should kamailio add did/vsf on sequential requests, when I call record_route()?

Should I set dlg_match_mode to 1? (I use 0)

Is it wrong to call record_route() from sequential requests?

Regards,

Kristian.

On Friday 27 November 2015 12:54:50 Kristian F. Høgh wrote:

Hi list,

Record-route on sequential requests doesn't have did/vsf parm.

On initial INVITE, I call record_route() and set dialog flag.

kamailio adds the following RR

Record-Route: <sip:ww.xx.yy.zz;lr;ftag=15af612df;vsf=AAAA....;did=4a8.3ca2>

UAC sends a re-INVITE, containing the following route:

Route: <sip:178.21.251.54;lr;ftag=15af612df;vsf=AAAA....;did=4a8.3ca2>

I call loose_route() followed by record-route(), and kamailio adds the following RR:

Record-Route: <sip:ww.xx.yy.zz;lr;ftag=15af612df>

I've got a phone which updates the routeset on sequential requests (which I don't think it should) and the did-matching fails.

Should kamailio add did/vsf on sequential requests, when I call record_route()?

Should I set dlg_match_mode to 1? (I use 0)

Is it wrong to call record_route() from sequential requests?

Which way is the best to resolve the problem?

Regards,

Kristian Høgh

Uni-tel A/S