Hi Daniel,
Certainly, below find the initial INVITE and the subsequent UPDATE, as received by Kamailio@65.xx.xx.167. If those aren't sufficient, let me know and if it's ok with you, I'll send the full pcap in private.
The dilemma in my mind is whether the UPDATE should have a pre-set Route header, similar to how the INVITE has.
2018/10/11 12:34:57.339306 65.xx.xx.172:5060 -> 65.xx.xx.167:5060
INVITE sip:238@65.xx.xx.161:64877;rinstance=8a315091627cc10b SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 65.xx.xx.172:5060;branch=z9hG4bK694382a1
Max-Forwards: 70
Route: sip:65.xx.xx.167;lr;received=sip:65.xx.xx.161:64877;r2=on,sip:xx.xx.xx.167:5070;lr;received=sip:65.xx.xx.161:64877;r2=on
From: "Robert" sip:226@mypbx.net;tag=as0ecef1c4
To: sip:238@65.xx.xx.161:64877;rinstance=8a315091627cc10b
Contact: sip:226@65.xx.xx.172:5060
Call-ID: 1e82197b42f0173b25e70759753d4210@mypbx.net
CSeq: 102 INVITE
Supported: replaces, timer, path
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 386
2018/10/11 12:35:06.096457 65.xx.xx.172:5060 -> 65.xx.xx.167:5060
UPDATE sip:238@10.17.0.35:64877;alias=65.xx.xx.161~64877~1 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 65.xx.xx.172:5060;branch=z9hG4bK34fab05c
Max-Forwards: 70
From: "Robert" sip:226@mypbx.net;tag=as0ecef1c4
To: sip:238@65.xx.xx.161:64877;rinstance=8a315091627cc10b;tag=6467b07f
Contact: sip:226@65.xx.xx.172:5060
Call-ID: 1e82197b42f0173b25e70759753d4210@mypbx.net
CSeq: 103 UPDATE
Content-Length: 0
Much obliged.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:38 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
you hve to provide the sip traffic for this case, the screenshot doesn't show the sip headers used for routing in this case, therefore grab the sip traffic for all sip messages in such scenarion, either ngrep output or pcap file, and send it over to see if some headers are missing or not set properly. Cheers, Daniel
On 11.10.18 21:03, Sergiu Pojoga wrote:
Hi ppl,
I have this problem with call transfer, may be someone can help.
The phone to the far right is registered with the Registrar to the far left using two PATH headers (trespassing two proxy ports, 5070 then 5060).
As you can see in the graph below, after receiving the UPDATE request, Kamailio relays it further from port 5060, I expect it to be from 5070 just like the dialog forming INVITE and the CANCEL afterwards.
[image: image.png]
The UPDATE has a to-tag, but unlike the original INVITE - it has no Route header!???
route[*WITHINDLG*] { if (!has_totag()) return; if (loose_route()) { route(DLGURI); if (is_method("BYE")) {
...
} else if ( is_method("ACK") ) { route(NATMANAGE); } else if ( is_method("NOTIFY") ) { record_route(); }
route(RELAY); exit; }
if ( is_method("ACK") ) {
...
}
# handle UPDATE method for in-dialog requests if (is_method("*UPDATE*")) { route(DLGURI); record_route(); route(RELAY); } }
Thanks in advance.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference -- www.kamailioworld.com Kamailio Advanced Training, Nov 12-14, 2018, in Berlin -- www.asipto.com
