And about the use case of '183 Session Progress after 180 Ringing';
In our B2BUA, we provide the kind of feature where if actual callee does not
answers the call (callee has been sent 180 Ringing), caller goes to IVR (for
this B2BUA sends 183 Session Progress to caller). By having this, caller can
We discussed like the same case few days back here. I am repeating earlier
post below.
"With some ITSP's, 183 Session Progress is sent (with SDP) to play the music
(something like, please wait while your call is on wait) when actual called
party is busy. However, 180 Ringing is sent as soon as cal
Can u give me a use case where UAS wants to send both 183 and 180 one
after the other?
Thanks
Regards
Ranjit
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
raikkme r
Sent: Wednesday, Sept
> Is it possible to receive 183 Session Progress after
> 180 Ringing (with Same To Tag)?
Yes.
> If so, under what cases?
Whenever the UAS wants to send 183 after 180.
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://
Hi all,
Is it possible to receive 183 Session Progress after 180 Ringing (with Same
To Tag)?
If so, under what cases?
Thanks,
raik
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/
Registration for SIPit 25 closes this Friday.
If you plan to attend and haven't registered, please do so now.
Information about the event and a link to the registration website can
be found at http://www.sipit.net
RjS
___
Sip-implementors mailing lis
Am 31.08.09 19:11, schrieb Francois Audet:
> I would tend to disagree that a policy of "Use UDP preferably
> and switch to TCP if message is too big" is a good policy. Especially
> considering that you'd have to keep the TCP connection alive anyways.
>
> I believe that always using the TCP connecti
