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 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 server.
All final responses to INVITEs must receive an ACK, and if the callee does not receive the ACK, it is supposed to re-send the final response. In this case, your proxy is misbehaving. In regard to who sends the ACK to the 487, a good rule is to ask "Who eats the 487?" (The official rules are stricter that all the behaviors people implement, but the "Who eats the resonse?" rule works in a broad range of cases.) In your case, the 487 is "eaten" by the proxy, which itself sends a 480 upstream. So the proxy should generate the ACK for the 487. If the proxy only passed the 487 upstream, the proxy could depend on the upstream agents to generate the ACK for the 487. Dale --- interop.pingtel.com -- the public SIP phone interoperability test server _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors ******************************************************* Siddhardha N. Garige Tampa, FL. Ph: (813)-298-4236. www.pbase.com/garige ******************************************************* --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
