Daniel,
I believe this is because the ACK for an unknown dialog is always silently
discarded by UA to avoid security issue.

Cheers,
Aman

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On 12.04.17 21:58, Adam Frankel wrote:
> > You guys are correct.  I forgot that this particular application
> > modifies the call signaling path to another device by updating the
> > contact header.   It's going to add aditional complexity to account
> > for this in SIPp.  I think I'll just tell my script to expect a "481"
> > if I am contacting this particular device type.
> >
> I am curious if the the 'wrong' request URI was actually the reason for
> the 481 to BYE. If the endpoint didn't like the R-URI for BYE, it should
> have disliked also for ACK and then the 200ok for INVITE should have
> been re-transmitted few times within the 3 seconds you wait before
> sending the BYE.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) - www.asipto.com
> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 - www.kamailioworld.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to