Hi Brett and thanks for the tips.
1. That is the way I have done it - two times a CR\LF 2. yes, Max-Forwards is a must, first I put it, then I removed it - doesn't help in both cases. 3. The system I have made runs in bridge mode, it doesn't have an IP, so to say. It transparently rewrites the SIP packets, so 100% I am not changing the IP or sending from a different one. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Tate" <br...@broadsoft.com> To: "Teodor Georgiev" <teo...@visp.net.lb>; <sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Constructing an ACK request (non 2XX based)in a stateless case >> What kind of darn errors am I making? > > Here are a few things to check: > > 1) Be sure your ACK request completes with a 2 carriage-return line-feeds > (1 to complete the last header and another completing the ACK (not > containing a body). > > 2) The ACK is missing a Max-Forwards header; rfc3261 section 20.1 table 1 > indicates that the header is mandatory. However I doubt that this is > really the issue. > > 3) You mentioned a stateless proxy; however the number of via > headers/entries does not reflect the involvement a proxy. I mainly > mention it in case your "proxy" is sending the ACK from a different IP > address. Depending upon a vendor's interpretation of rfc3261 section > 17.2.3 and services such as using Access Control Lists, it can cause a > problem. > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
