On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net> wrote: > > 29 jan 2010 kl. 10.25 skrev Alex Balashov: > >> I don't know about 4xx, but 503 would be more benign for general/ >> miscellaneous errors than 603. > 503 indicates that there's a problem with the server, so that's not a good > replacement. > > We're sending this when there's a failed call, in most cases because of the > outbound channel failure without a proper hangup cause being set in that > channel driver (may very well be chan_sip :-)) > > No, we need something in the 4xx class. I haven't had time to go through and > consider all the options in the massive set of RFCs we have to work with, but > will try to do that tonight after a Friday night dinner - if no one on the > list comes up with the solution before that. > > Isn't that a hacker way of spending Friday night - enjoying the wonderful > prose of RFC3261 and companions? > > /O >
Olle, I don't want to ruin your plans for tonight (RFC3261 is a lot of fun) but how about 403: 21.4.4 403 Forbidden The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help, and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. I like this because the most reliable way to get Asterisk to send a 603 at the moment is with something like this: sip.conf: [general] context=nocrackers extensions.conf: [nocrackers] exten => i,1,Hangup exten => s,1,Hangup exten => t,1,Hangup Wouldn't a 403 be perfect in this scenario? It looks like there are certainly other cases where it wouldn't fit quite as well (I haven't even looked at those involving REFER) but it looks perfect to me. -- Kristian Kielhofner http://www.astlinux.org http://blog.krisk.org http://www.star2star.com http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.voalte.com -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
