The connection address of 0.0.0.0 in B's re-INVITE is just a request to A to stop sending. There is no requirement that A should also respond with a connection address of 0.0.0.0, unless it wants to also stop receiving.
See: http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2001-March/000782.html Muthu On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:34:29 +0100, Martin van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have seen this happen with some soft-UAs. The way I read the SDP > specs, this is indeed not the desired behaviour. In your example A > should respond with 0.0.0.0 also (i.e. inactive). However, for > interoperability reasons, your UA should be capable of dealing with > this and you may assume that A accepts the hold. > > Martin. > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:03:12 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > hello, > > > > Suppose A is calling B and B keeps A on hold. B sends INVITE with the > > connection address containing 0.0.0.0.But when A sends 200 Ok to B it > > sends with its own connection address but not 0.0.0.0. is it a correct > > behaviour of A? > > > > regards, > > sangeetha > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
