mbia.edu [mailto:sip-
>> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Wiklund
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:38 AM
>> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by
> 180
>> wi
On 6/11/15 10:28 AM, Roger Wiklund wrote:
Is this assumption correct:
If UAC sends 100rel required, then UAC controls PRACK.
If UAS sends 100rel supported, then UAS controls PRACK by sending
100rel required with proper RSeq?
If that's correct I think the PBX is the problem here by sending PRACK
-Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-
> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Wiklund
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:38 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implemento
; -Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger
> Wiklund
> Sent: June-11-15 10:38 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 with
tors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
> Roger Wiklund
> Sent: June-11-15 10:34 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by
> 180 with
...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger
> Wiklund
> Sent: June-11-15 10:34 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by 180
> with 100rel
Behalf Of Roger
Wiklund
Sent: June-11-15 10:34 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by 180 with
100rel supported
INVITE
Contact: "Ville Mex"
;tag=120e096f
PRACK on 183
Contact: "Ville Mex"
;tag=120e096f
rs-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger
> Wiklund
> Sent: June-11-15 9:59 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by 180 with
> 100rel supported
>
> Call flow - outgoing call from PBX to ITSP.
Is this assumption correct:
If UAC sends 100rel required, then UAC controls PRACK.
If UAS sends 100rel supported, then UAS controls PRACK by sending
100rel required with proper RSeq?
If that's correct I think the PBX is the problem here by sending PRACK
to the 180 ringing.
The 180 ringing only ha
-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger
Wiklund
Sent: June-11-15 9:59 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by 180 with
100rel supported
Call flow - outgoing call from PBX to ITSP.
--> INVITE with 100
Call flow - outgoing call from PBX to ITSP.
--> INVITE with 100rel supported
<-- 100 trying
<-- 183 session progress with 100rel required
--> PRACK
<-- 200 OK on PRACK
<-- 180 ringing with 100rel supported
--> PRACK
<-- 481 Call leg/transaction does not exist
I've checked the To/From tags
11 matches
Mail list logo
