I commented on the FreePBX forum that, when I suggested, here, that people should be moving to chan_pjsip I’ve had that challenged, for reasons other than TEL: URIs. I believe the reasons related to providers insisting on non-standard use of headers.
I’ve now been challenged to provide details of those reasons. Especially if you have challenged me on this I would appreciate either details of problem cases, or a link to one of the challenges. Even, better, would be if you could reply to FreePBX Roadmap for Chan_SIP Removal - #11 by BlazeStudios - Development - FreePBX Community Forums so I don’t have to be a middle man, if people challenged the validity of the reason.
I’ve changed the subject to try and make the question clearer. I’m after things that people have previously reported as blocking a move to chan_pjsip, not surmountable difficulties. Currently that includes providers who require TEL: URLs to be accepted, although I understand that partial support is now in the pipeline, but I remember people saying there are other unusual uses of SIP that chan_pjsip cannot currently handle but some providers insist on.
I did try to find the old threads, where my suggesting to move to chan_pjsip was challenged, but I couldn’t find good search terms, and I’ve posted a lot here, so a brute force search is going to be difficult.