Hi Venkatesh,
Ideally proxy should send ACK for 487 Request Terminated.
It seems like Ondo Sip server is misbehaving.
Thanks and Regards,
Santosh
Venkatesh Joshi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/04/2006 11:11 AM
To
sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
cc
Venkatesh Joshi
Hi Santosh,
Thanks a ton!
A follow-up question - Does the sip proxy generate an ACK on receiving the
487 from B ?
Or does it forward the ACK sent by A (which sends the ACK on receiving the
487) ?
The issue is that in the the product on which I am working, the requirement is
that we
Hi Venkatesh,
Proxy should generate an ACK on receiving the 487 from B (and send it to
B) and it should forward 487 to its next hop ( Which may be
the final recepeint i.e in your case its A, or another proxy).And
whichever recieves 487 should send ACK to sender.
Thanks and Regards,
Santosh
Hi,
Does anyone know specific details about the Ad-hocGroupRequest parameter?
The PoC Signalling Specification does not standardize this parameter.
However it should be used for the INVITE for initiating a PoC-session.
Is this parameter PoC-Server dependend?
Is there a best practice?
BTW, are
RFC361 12.2.1.1 Generating the Request
If the route set is empty, the UAC MUST place the remote target URI
into the Request-URI. The UAC MUST NOT add a Route header field to
the request.
If the route set is not empty, and the first URI in the route set
contains the lr
Hi,
I have question on following scenario.
A ---(Invite)-- B
A --(183) B
A --(200) B
A ---(ACK)-- B
A --(Re-Invite)--- B
A --- (Bye) --- B
A -- (200 for Bye) B
What should be the behavior after this.
Should B stop retransmitting Re-Invite and then wait
Hi Venkatesh/Santosh,
Proxy should not forward the 487 as it has already sent one non-2xx final
response (408 request timeout).
RFC 3261 16.7 Response Processing (Section 5)
This step, combined with the next, ensures that a stateful
proxy will forward exactly one final
Hello,
According to RFC if Timer C fires at proxy, it should generate CANCEL
(provided 1xx was received). Now if the CANCEL gets 200 OK but the original
INVITE does not receive any final response, what should the proxy do? Won't
the INVITE client transaction continue to hang forever? Won't this
B should retransmit re-invite and wait for 487 or some final response for
Re-INVITE.
Regards
S.Radha krishna
Ashish Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have question on following scenario.
A ---(Invite)-- B
A --(183) B
A --(200) B
A ---(ACK)-- B
A
Hi,
I wonder if the following situation is according to RFC 3261.
When we send a REGISTER request to a SIP server, we receive a 407 Proxy
Authentication Required response, containing a WWW-Authenticate header
for realm 123domain.
The client resends the original REGISTER request with the
Hi Venkatesh,
By the functionality of what you have described for your Proxy, it is
apparent that it is NOT a proxy functionality.
Rather it is a B2BUA logic. So, the problem is with the B2BUA logic in
the Ondo SIP server.
At least that holds good for the case for Sending CANCEL.
Cross-check to
Hi Ashish,
See innline ...
Rgds,
Amar
The greatest enemy of best is good. If you're willing to accept good
you'll never be the Best.
Ashish Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/04/2006 03:00 PM
To
sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
cc
Subject
[Sip-implementors] Query on
I think this is a race codition in the applcation and not in the
stack.If A received the re-Invite, it should respond to the
trasaction with a final response even if it sent a BYE. Regardless of
the status of the response, whether its an acceptance of the invite via
a 200 Ok or a 3xx-6xx
[inline]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ashish
Kumar
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:00 PM
To: sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query on Re-Invite
Hi,
I have question on following scenario.
A
Error responses (3xx,4xx,5xx, and 6xx) are hop-by-hop. The proxy must always
send the ACK to an error response. Only the ACK for a success (2xx) response
is sent end-to-end. A proxy is suppose to send only one error response back
to the UAC(A). Also, the proxy does not forward an ACK to an
Comments inline...
Thanks Regards,
Nataraju A.B.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sudhir
kumar
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Sip_Impl
Subject: [Sip-implementors] query regarding BYE request URI
Hi All,
If UA received INVITE
Hi,
If Only Contact header is present : To release it sends a BYE request with
the Request-URI set to the Contact URI included in the request and with no
Route header set.
If Contact and Route header is present: sends a BYE request with the
Request-URI set to the Contact URI and a
Sigrid Thijs wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if the following situation is according to RFC 3261.
When we send a REGISTER request to a SIP server, we receive a 407 Proxy
Authentication Required response, containing a WWW-Authenticate header
for realm 123domain.
The client resends the original
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 12:12 +0200, Sigrid Thijs wrote:
Is this allowed that we receive a second 401 or 407 response without
mentioning the first WWW-Authenticate header?
I see no requirement that a response to a message with authentication
headers must itself include the authentication
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:11 +0530, Venkatesh Joshi wrote:
However, the problem is that multiple 487 Request Terminated messages are
coming from B.
I think this is because the proxy doesn't send the ACK for the 487 message at
all. Is this
the normal behavior ? I am using the Ondo Sip
Non-success final responses (3-6xx) and the ACK to those responses are
hop-by-hop. Regardless of whether or not the proxy forwards the non-success
final response upstream toward the UAC, it MUST always send an ACK.
RFC 3261, section 16.7 (page 111) says:
3-6xx responses are delivered
Dale,
In this case should proxy wait unitl it gets ACK for 480 and then send an ACK
to 487 ? Or should it consider 480 and 487 as seperate events?
Thanks,
-Sid
Dale R. Worley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:11 +0530,
Venkatesh Joshi wrote:
However, the problem is that
Hello Sigrid,
In your 407 Proxy authentication required, you have Proxy-authenticate for
the challenge? This one seems to be from the proxy. I believe registrar send
401 Unauthorized which seems be your second one. So, by including both
authorizations when you send the second register, your
A related question, is there any interaction between path and
record-route? Or is path is to be used only for initial request and
record-route is also added by intermediate proxies?
Kedar
On 5/4/06, rahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If Only Contact header is present : To release it sends
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 09:15 -0700, Siddhardha Garige wrote:
In this case should proxy wait unitl it gets ACK for 480 and then send
an ACK to 487 ? Or should it consider 480 and 487 as seperate events?
It can do either.
Dale
---
interop.pingtel.com -- the public SIP phone interoperability
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 10:58 -0400, Bob Penfield wrote:
Non-success final responses (3-6xx) and the ACK to those responses are
hop-by-hop. Regardless of whether or not the proxy forwards the non-success
final response upstream toward the UAC, it MUST always send an ACK.
This applies to
It can do either.
Isn't this statement violating Invite Client Transaction. As per the ICT state
machine it is the responsibility of *INVITE client transaction* to generate an
ACK on receipt of 300-699 response. I don't think proxy(TU) can tie the ACK for
480 with ACK for 487.
-Ramakrishna
+1
Sachin
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] question on the behavior of 487 message.
It can do either.
Isn't this statement violating Invite
28 matches
Mail list logo
