Hi Alexander, Anyway I much be thanks very much to you. Can any body make the test to confirm these things?
Best regards Phan Duc On 6/24/07, Alexander Chemeris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, On 6/23/07, Phan Van Duc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have found the reason why these things occur. > In SER sip server, if I configure ser to support NAT and in the Ringing > response message to sipXtapi, ser included nat=yes to Record-Route field: > Record-Route: < > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060;nat=yes;ftag=1c28742;lr=on> > And sipXtapi do not process correctly as above. > > If I configure ser do not support NAT and in the Ringing response message > to sipxTapi do not have nat=yes in the Record-Route field: > Record-Route: <sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;ftag=1c14113;lr=on> > Every things will be ok! It's cool that you found the reason. So, you know where to dig further, if you want. ;) I'm not sure about correct behaviour according to SIP RFCs, so I could not say who is wrong - SER or sipXtapi. If sipXtapi is wrong here, patch to fix this is wellcome. > I don't know why. Have you ever tested this situation? No, I have no chance to test this. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. SIPez LLC. SIP VoIP, IM and Presence Consulting http://www.SIPez.com tel: +1 (617) 273-4000
_______________________________________________ sipxtapi-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipxtapi-dev/
