Thanks Paul for your inputs.
Yes, UAC doesn't include 'Supported:timer' in the INVITE, then this is a
bad implementation.
~ Aman
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:57 PM Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 7/3/18 6:15 AM, Aman wrote:
> > I find out an interesting conversation exactly about my scenario, when
> RFC
On 7/3/18 10:34 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Yeah, that's true.
It's easily forgot in an applied sense because the mainstream FOSS proxies,
e.g. Kamailio, both support dialog state tracking and issuing various kinds of
in-dialog DPD requests (e.g. OPTIONS), and even support spoofing BYEs to hang
Yeah, that's true.
It's easily forgot in an applied sense because the mainstream FOSS proxies,
e.g. Kamailio, both support dialog state tracking and issuing various kinds of
in-dialog DPD requests (e.g. OPTIONS), and even support spoofing BYEs to hang
up a dead call if DPD requests go
On 7/3/18 6:15 AM, Aman wrote:
I find out an interesting conversation exactly about my scenario, when RFC
4028 was a draft and was in discussion mode,
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg00743.html
Call flow:
UAC - P-A - P-B -- UAS
1. UAC sends a simple INVITE w/o
On 7/3/18 3:53 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
No, it's not illegal to retry a call to the same gateway (in case of 6xx
response).
Nor is it illegal to reject it. :-)
My experience in an applied sense with SSTs (SIP Session Timers) is that they
are poorly supported, seemingly due to all the
I find out an interesting conversation exactly about my scenario, when RFC
4028 was a draft and was in discussion mode,
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg00743.html
Call flow:
UAC - P-A - P-B -- UAS
1. UAC sends a simple INVITE w/o any session timer. 2. P-A inserts
No, it's not illegal to retry a call to the same gateway (in case of 6xx
response).
Nor is it illegal to reject it. :-)
My experience in an applied sense with SSTs (SIP Session Timers) is that they
are poorly supported, seemingly due to all the state-keeping involved. Many UAs
commit to a
Hi All,
We have noticed that one provider is not reattempting the call with new
session-expire value once the call is rejected with 422 Session Interval
Too Small.
But RFC 4028 doesn't say its mandatory to retry the call by UAC, but isn't
a wrong behavior of UAC?
I understand that
