Gilson Urbano Ferreira Dias <gilsonur...@gmail.com> writes: > Suddenly, the server decided to send CSeq = 1 in three consecutive Register > messages for different Call-Ids. > > I tried reading https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261#section-12.2.1.1 and > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261#section-8.1.1.5, but I'm still not > sure if this is the expected behavior. > > Could someone please clarify? > > A--------------Request: INVITE (Call-ID = A) (Cseq 932841)------------>B > <--------------Status: 100 Trying (Call-ID = A) (Cseq 932841)------------ > <--------------Status: 200 OK (Call-ID = A) (Cseq 932841)------------ > ---------------Request: ACK (Call-ID = A) (Cseq 932841)------------> > > <--------------Request: Register (Call-ID = B) (Cseq 1)----------------- > <--------------Request: Register (Call-ID = C) (Cseq 1)----------------- > ---------------Status: 200 OK (Call-ID = B) (Cseq 1)-----------------> > <--------------Request: Register (Call-ID = D) (Cseq 1)----------------- > ---------------Status: 200 OK (Call-ID = C) (Cseq 1)-----------------> > ---------------Status: 403 Forbidden(Call-ID = D) (Cseq 1)----------------->
The crux is that all the REGISTER messages with a given Call-ID value form a "pseudo-dialog" in that they don't form a proper dialog, but they are all associated, in sequence, regarding *one* registration binding. A consequence is that if two REGISTER messages have different Call-IDs, they are not related, and the fact that they have the same CSeq is of no matter. You have not described what AORs the various REGISTER pseudo-dialogs are for. What you describe would be the common behavior if the three pseudo-dialogs were for different AORs. The 403 response for Call-ID D most likely has to do with the authentication presented in the REGISTER for Call-ID. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
