Hello,
Please find the diff. t_reply_A.c is the orginal and t_reply_B.c is the
modified file.
--- t_reply_A.c 2011-10-14 10:05:45.093352500 -0400
+++ t_reply_B.c 2011-10-16 01:10:53.179916800 -0400
@@ -1726,6 +1726,8 @@
reply route */
Hello,
can you send the patch with 'git diff' or 'diff -u' -- it will be easier
to apply and analyze it. Once I get it, I will look over the case you
reported in more details.
Thanks,
Daniel
On 10/13/11 10:23 PM, Jijo wrote:
Hi Daniel..
I'm using version 3.1.0. I looked at the change but i
Hi Daniel..
I'm using version 3.1.0. I looked at the change but its done only for
forward_reply.. How about relay_reply()?
Thanks
Jijo
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I haven't understood exactly what you tried? Was it use of
> force_send_socket(.
Hello,
I haven't understood exactly what you tried? Was it use of
force_send_socket(...) in onreply_route and didn't work? If yes, what
version are you runing, there was a fix for such case some time ago:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=9dbf735878acc87bab1a
Hi All,
Our system has two IP address, one is used for kamailio and 2nd one is used
for data.
The problem is suppose a request came in to kamailio on a TCP connection
with first IP address and connection is torned down before sending the
response. Later when the response is send out kamialio is u
