Hello, in the failure route you have the request under processing, not the response.
You have to use an onreply_route[x] for that transaction and do there remove_hf() Cheers, Daniel On 20.12.18 11:57, Olli Attila wrote: > Hello, > > Any ideas about this header manipulation? > > Cheers, > Olli > > pe 14. jouluk. 2018 klo 12.31 Olli Attila (attio...@gmail.com) kirjoitti: >> Hello, >> >> We have a call case where our softswitch replies to in-dialog >> re-invite with "SIP 491 Request pending". This happens when a customer >> sip device is trying to re-invite the session too fast even though the >> softswitch is still processing the earlier request. Kamailio operates >> between this customer device and the softswitch. >> >> The softswitch is adding a P-Charging-Vector header to this SIP 491 >> reply which we want to drop (remove_hf...) from the reply when we >> route the SIP 491 message back to the customers device. >> >> I tried to drop this inside in-dialog failure route but it seems that >> Kamailio forwards the orginal 491 message statelessly to customer and >> the header still extists there eventhough failure route has deleted >> it. I guess this modification should be done in a sateful manner for >> Kamailio to actually write the changes to the outgoing reply towards >> the customer device. >> >> Any suggestions how the 491 reply could be edited and then forwarded >> onwards to the customer device? >> >> Cheers, >> --Olli > > -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference - May 6-8, 2019 -- www.kamailioworld.com Kamailio Advanced Training - Mar 4-6, 2019 in Berlin; Mar 25-27, 2019, in Washington, DC, USA -- www.asipto.com _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users