Re: [Sip-implementors] 180 being ignored by phone

There is a user=phone issue within the 180's To header. It is inside the brackets for INVITE; it is outside for 180. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu > [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On > Behalf Of Andrew Wood > Sent:

[Sip-implementors] 180 being ignored by phone

Im trying to implement a simple forking proxy server. In the example below the calling phone (200) is on 192.168.254.1 The called phone (201) is on 192.168.254.2 The proxy is at 192.168.254.254 Following is the Invite received by the proxy from the caller, and the 180 which the proxy sends back t

Re: [Sip-implementors] Retry intervals

Timer values must be the same on both ends of any given transaction. So choosing different values is only an implementation option if you know you will be implementing both ends. So it isn't a good answer to the question Dale is raising. Thanks, Paul Neelakantan Balasubramanian

Re: [Sip-implementors] Retry intervals

See below. Thanks, Neel. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Dale Worley > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:40 PM > To: sip-implementors > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Retry

Re: [Sip-implementors] Number Portability, TEL URI and E.164-based SIP URI

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- >> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Pascual >> Ávila >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Hadriel Kaplan >