18 Feb
2009
18 Feb
'09
2:27 p.m.
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Carrierroute is assigning the correct host address. So
I guess that works,
but I'm worried about the invite, that is send with ip address of the
kamailio, instead of the one assigned by carrierroute.
Do you think the address would change if it could find host address
assigned by cr?
Hi Juan,
> U 2009/02/18 12:40:51.606688 192.168.50.118:8236
-> 192.168.50.93:5060
> INVITE sip:456789@192.168.50.93 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 192.168.50.118:8236;
>
> U 2009/02/18 12:40:51.611241 192.168.50.93:5060 -> 192.168.50.118:8236
> SIP/2.0 100 Giving a try..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.50.118:8236;
>
> U 2009/02/18 12:40:51.612321 192.168.50.93:5060 -> 192.158.50.114:5060
> INVITE sip:456789@192.168.50.93 SIP/2.0..Record-Route:
.118 is the address of your test box, .114 the kamailio and .93 the gateway?
Yes, cr should rewrite the request uri to the one in its table. I just tested
with a non existing host name on my system (test.box):
Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri
49721123456787 was rewritten to sip:49721123456787@test.box:7000, carrier 0,
domain 10
Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: CRITICAL:core:mk_proxy: could not
resolve hostname: "test.box"
Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: ERROR:tm:uri2proxy: bad host name in URI
<sip:49721123456787@test.box:7000>
Feb 18 13:26:30 ca ../kamailio[2430]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: failure to
add branches
Cheers,
Henning