Hey Klaus, It was solved by commenting the fix_nated_contact() in my route section that deals with NAT. In that section, if was found that NAT is required then it does: force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); // which is not commented
are there any side-effects to doing this? Regards, Lir. On 7/24/07, Klaus Darilion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suspect you are using fix_nated_contact twice. Use it only in route[], > but not in failure_route[] > > klaus > > liran tal wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > > > I'm using sequential forking and on one of the scenarios there appears > > to be a problem. > > > > When OpenSER attempts to find the first most relevant destination for > the > > call the SIP headers are ok. If the first destination that OpenSER > attempts > > to contact is offline/unreachable it continues to the next one in turn > in > > which > > it produces a bad Contact header which looks like this: > > > > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060> > > > > As you can see it's writing the sip information twice for some reason. > > Has anyone seen this happen before? > > Also, where should I be looking at to find the problem? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Lir. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Users mailing list > > Users@openser.org > > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
