Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-05-04 Thread Julien Chavanton
ancu > *Cc:* users@lists.opensips.org > *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route > > thank you, this is a problem as I do not control this proxy (2.2.2.2), > is there a suggested way of handling this problem ? > > Maybe there is something esle wrong o

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-05-02 Thread Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
INVITE > > Record-Route: > > > > P2 --> P1 > > 100 Trying > > Record-Route: > > Record-Route: > > > > > This is not correct. The RR of P2 most me on top of RR of P1 - adding RR > headers works as a stack. > > Regards, > Bogdan > > > > Is there something wrong ? shouldn't proxy

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-05-02 Thread Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
; > P2 --> P1 > > 100 Trying > > Record-Route: > > Record-Route: > > > > > This is not correct. The RR of P2 most me on top of RR of P1 - adding RR > headers works as a stack. > > Regards, > Bogdan > > > > Is there something wrong ? shouldn't proxy 2.2.2.2 add his > > Record-Route on top

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-04-30 Thread Julien Chavanton
dan-Andrei Iancu Cc: users@lists.opensips.org Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route thank you, this is a problem as I do not control this proxy (2.2.2.2), is there a suggested way of handling this problem ? Maybe there is something esle wrong on my side cusaing this

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-04-30 Thread Julien Chavanton
t: Thu 30/04/2009 3:44 PM To: Julien Chavanton Cc: users@lists.opensips.org Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route Hi Julian, Julien Chavanton wrote: > > > UA --> PROXY 1.1.1.1 --> PROXY 2.2.2.2 --> UA > > P1 --> P2 > INVITE

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-04-30 Thread Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> *From:* Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bog...@voice-system.ro] > *Sent:* Thu 30/04/2009 8:12 AM > *To:* Julien Chavanton > *Cc:* users@lists.opensips.org > *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route > > Hi Julien, > > I think Asterisk is

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-04-30 Thread Julien Chavanton
__ From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bog...@voice-system.ro] Sent: Thu 30/04/2009 8:12 AM To: Julien Chavanton Cc: users@lists.opensips.org Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route Hi Julien, I think Asterisk is doing the job properly. As you see the 200

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-04-30 Thread Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
Hi Julien, I think Asterisk is doing the job properly. As you see the 200 OK has: Contact: . Record-Route: . Record-Route: . So, Asterisk is generating the ACK with the Contact in RURI and the Route set in the reverted order (correct loose routing). -> RURI: sip:15141234...@2.2.2.2

[OpenSIPS-Users] handling multiple proxy / Record-Route

2009-04-29 Thread Julien Chavanton
Hi, I have a situation whit multiple proxy where ACK is not sent as I would expect. if we look at the following "200 OK", I am expecting ACK to be sent to 1.1.1.1 but the "Asterisk PBX 1.6.0.6." is selecting 2.2.2.2 is this normal ? Do I have to handle Record-Route differently ? U 1.1.1