On 03/20/2010 05:16 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> I think we should try to add some automated self tests for IPv6 to
> the SIPit test network in order to get more tests done, like we did
> and will continue to do with basic call handling and TLS. [...]
> Feedback is very welcome - we need all kin
Ayesha Shahab wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a non-established dialogs how do we have a 400 Bad Request response ?
>
> The scenario is as follows
> 1. A sends an INVITE to B
> 2. A gets 100 trying response
> 3. A sends lot many OPTIONS towards B
> 4. B does not respond to the OPTIONS
> 5. B responds with
You didn't answer why step 3 exists. Why is A sending OPTIONS upon INVITE's
100 instead of waiting for an INVITE response that establishes a dialog?
Your call flow to send OPTIONS upon INVITE's 100 instead of waiting for an
INVITE response that establishes a dialog is abnormal.
Yes; per rfc432
Hi Brett,
Thanks for the info!
At Step3, though 'A' sends out the OPTIONS to 'B'. It is not received at
'B'..
When 400 Bad Request response is received for the INVITE, the INVITE
transaction is terminated and the dialog state is in 'Terminating'
But then, because the TimerE fires , the OPTIONS is
Yes, Brett Tate is right.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
> RFC 4566 section 6:
>
>If none of the attributes "sendonly", "recvonly", "inactive",
>and "sendrecv" is present, "sendrecv" SHOULD be assumed as the
>default for sessions that are not of the conference type
RFC 4566 section 6:
If none of the attributes "sendonly", "recvonly", "inactive",
and "sendrecv" is present, "sendrecv" SHOULD be assumed as the
default for sessions that are not of the conference type
"broadcast" or "H332" (see below).
RFC 3264 section 5.1:
If the offerer wis
Concerning step 2, a 100 response does not create a dialog; thus step 3 is
basically considered abnormal. What are you attempting to accomplish with step
3?
Concerning step 7, send ACK.
Concerning the expectation of 408 response to OPTIONS, see rfc4320.
> -Original Message-
> From: si
Dear all,
Just wanted to know that if we don't put "sendrecv" in media
attribute in INVITE.
Is that a problem with that
Regards
Rishabh Jain
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.ed
Hi All,
Consider the following ICE scenario
Agent A(ICE FULL) is behind symmetric NAT and uses its relayed
candidate.
Agent B(ICE LITE) is in public network.
a. In case of RTP, does the RTP data sent from Agent B to Agent A be in
the form of Send Indication or can it send normal UDP RTP packets?
Hi,
One more thing, Indialog requests are always send to the contact
received in response. Here since only 100 Trying is received and obviously
without contact. So OPTIONS here will be treated as out of dialog request and
will be handled independently by UE.
Thanks and Regards,
Vive
10 matches
Mail list logo
