Do the Request-URIs line up?
Joel Gerber Network Operations Specialist - Telephone Telephone Eastlink joel.ger...@corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241 -----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 10:34 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" <sip:+46840921234@192.168.254.10:5060;transport=TCP>;tag=120e096f PRACK on 183 Contact: "Ville Mex" <sip:+46840921234@192.168.254.10:5060;transport=TCP>;tag=120e096f PRACK on 180 Contact: "Ville Mex" <sip:+46840921234@192.168.254.10:5060;transport=TCP>;tag=120e096f They are identical. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Joel Gerber <joel.ger...@corp.eastlink.ca> wrote: > I would take a look at the contact header in the INVITE and both PRACKs. > > Joel Gerber > Network Operations Specialist - Telephone Telephone Eastlink > joel.ger...@corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241 > > -----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 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 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 and the Call-Id, everything is identical. > > I'm assuming the PBX is doing the correct thing here, it receives a > 180 ringing with 100rel supported. > > Or is there something in the standard saying that if you have PRACKed one > provisional response there's no need to do it on subsequent provisional > responses? > > Any idea what the culprit could be? > > I've opened a ticket with the team running the server that's sending the 481, > but I just wanted to check with you guys if there's anything obvious here. > > Thanks! > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
