...@lists.opensips.org> on behalf of Daniel Zanutti <
> daniel.zanu...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <users@lists.opensips.org>
> *Date: *Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:57 PM
> *To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <users@lists.opensips.org>
> *Subje
org> on behalf of Daniel Zanutti
<daniel.zanu...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: OpenSIPS users mailling list <users@lists.opensips.org>
Date: Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:57 PM
To: OpenSIPS users mailling list <users@lists.opensips.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Remove to-tag from 1
Hi Ben and Alex
Thanks for the quick response. This is exactly what I was worrying about,
get unto some unpredictable state like A rejecting some packages.
Agree that putting a B2B in front/back of opensips would solve but it´s
another server =(
Thanks for the advices guys!
On Fri, Oct 21,
On 10/21/2016 06:36 PM, Newlin, Ben wrote:
Not only that, but provisional responses (except 100 Trying) are
required to have a To tag [1]. So you would likely run into issues with
UAs if you start returning messages without them.
That is an astute point.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal |
ips.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Remove to-tag from 1XX provisional responses
Conceptually, To tags are governed by the UAs, not the proxy, so, like
most fundamental elements of SIP messages, the proxy has no business
removing them. :-)
On 10/21/2016 05:41 PM, Daniel Zanutti wrote:
Hi
Conceptually, To tags are governed by the UAs, not the proxy, so, like
most fundamental elements of SIP messages, the proxy has no business
removing them. :-)
On 10/21/2016 05:41 PM, Daniel Zanutti wrote:
Hi
Short:
Do you guys see any problem on removing the to-tag of all 1XX messages?
Hi
Short:
Do you guys see any problem on removing the to-tag of all 1XX messages?
Long description:
If user A calls number . Opensips forward to gateway B which replies
with 183 session progress, then refuses with 503.
Opensips then call gateway C which replies with 183 then 200 OK.
User
