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 decision , and i think that what it has been done in 3398.
Things you could try to overcome this is if possible to include the Reason: header then you could include the real isup cause that could help the gateway to a do better mapping. Also SIPT will definitely ensure that that nothing get lost in translation. regards On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> wrote: > 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 also mapped to SIP 480: > > 19 no answer from the user --> 480 Temporarily unavailable > > > 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). > > I'm experimenting interoperability problems due to this exact issue > (480 -> 18 -> 408). > > > Thanks for any comment. > > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <i...@aliax.net> > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
