Hello,
the received is added because the ip/address in via is not the same as
source address. It is a section in an rfc about that.
If textops can help with that, then it should be ok if you do it.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 08/10/14 07:53, Gonzalo Gasca wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Just a quick update, I
Do you refer to the http response only? Or to SIP as well?
Daniel
On 07/10/14 06:19, Gonzalo Gasca wrote:
Daniel,
I will re-write it in Kamailio, seems to be that during initial WS
negotiation (HTTP Connection Upgrade), Kamailio is already including
the Via header:
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
Hi Daniel,
I see the Via header in both initial Websocket upgrade response
(101) and in SIP 200 OK from Kamailio when Sipml5 client is
registering.
At SIP level including rport in initial REGISTER message from client
and getting a received field from Kamailio makes sense and I will
use your
Daniel,
I will re-write it in Kamailio, seems to be that during initial WS
negotiation (HTTP Connection Upgrade), Kamailio is already including
the Via header:
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 172.31.22.2:37137\r\n
Which as you said is perfectly fine, Im just trying to hide my info.
Thanks
-Gonzalo
No.
