Yes, the only things that's different is the branch-id in the Via header. And the RAck sequence number in the PRACK for the 180. That's 0 1 because there's no RSeq to copy from. I suspect that's the problem, and the PBX is the problem here, but I'm not sure.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Joel Gerber <joel.ger...@corp.eastlink.ca> wrote: > 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
