Re: [SR-Users] Fix missing Via with t_reply()

Hello, On 14.08.17 14:30, Mikko Lehto wrote: > 2016-03-18 Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > >> My guess that the sbc_5 is so poor implemented that it takes the Via >> from last request, which is CANCEL, but CANCEL is a hop-by-hop request >> in this case. If my guess is

[SR-Users] Fix missing Via with t_reply() (was: Kamailio 4.3.4: receive_msg(): no via found in reply)

2016-03-18 Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > My guess that the sbc_5 is so poor implemented that it takes the Via > from last request, which is CANCEL, but CANCEL is a hop-by-hop request > in this case. If my guess is confirmed, the implementation of sbc_5 is > really far away