Yes, devices behind NAT are not having replies processed correctly. Kamailio
forgets they're behind NAT. Without topos loaded, it's able to remember that
and handles the reply correctly.
I've got several IP Phones and Asterisk behind NAT that exhibit the problem. On
the other side is a Metaswitch.
This was the first major difference I spotted, but I've since uncovered further
unexpected behaviour with INVITES. It appears the initial INVITE is forwarded
with the modified headers and then a second INVITE is forwarded that's missing
the Contact header, but is otherwise identical.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/1005#issuecomment-281419458
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
