IMHO, there is now way to guarantee 1:1 mapping due to internetworking ,
have you looked at Q.1912.5 spec ??, ITU defined and more detailed than
3398.
the problem to me is from ISUP to SIP always there is a clearer mapping,
but from SIP to ISUP is not the clear so you have to make educated decisi
2010/3/27 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
> Then, shouldn't 480 be mapped to 19? In this way it would be a 1:1
> relationship.
> Also, 480 doesn't mean the same as 408 (even if both are the worst SIP
> status codes as they are vaguely defined and are ambiguous).
Also note what the section 7.2.8 of RFC 3398
Hi, RFC 3398 (mapping SIP/ISUP) states that SIP 480 is mapped to ISUP 18:
480 Temporarily unavailable --> 18 No user responding
but at the same time it states that ISUP 18 is mapped to SIP 408:
18 no user responding --> 408 Request Timeout
Why? Note that ISUP 19 is al
