Thanks guys for confirming this! I will have a chat with the PBX guys instead =)
/Roger On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Brett Tate <br...@broadsoft.com> wrote: > Hi, > > As you noticed (and indicated by the following snippet), the UAS did not > send the 180 reliably. Thus the UAC should not have sent PRACK; UAS > returning 481 is correct. > > RFC 3262 section 3: > > "The provisional response to be sent reliably is constructed by the > UAS core according to the procedures of Section 8.2.6 of RFC 3261. > In addition, it MUST contain a Require header field containing the > option tag 100rel, and MUST include an RSeq header field. The value > of the header field for the first reliable provisional response in a > transaction MUST be between 1 and 2**31 - 1." > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- >> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Wiklund >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:38 AM >> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu >> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 with 100rel required, followed by > 180 >> with 100rel supported >> >> 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. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
