I guess that 200-OK for the re-INVITE by some reason does not contain the route set. as it was already mentioned above it is hard to say without seeing the whole sip trace.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:05 AM Ranjit Avasarala <ranjitka...@gmail.com> wrote: > May be - I think ACK should have Contact header. Try adding that and check > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 6:37 PM onewhoknows <onewhokn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have a UAC sending an ACK for a 200OK (re-INVITE) to a proxy that never > > gets to the UAS, this is what the ACK looks like: > > > > ACK sip:1000@10.69.69.70:5061 SIP/2.0 > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.10.11:5068;branch=z08346hjn > > From: <sip:1234567890@10.10.10.11>;tag=dfhgq23 > > To: "1000" <sip:1000@10.69.69.69>;tag=8068c88736ec > > Call-ID: 0917235h > > CSeq: 2 ACK > > Max-Forwards: 70 > > User-Agent: Rev > > Content-Length: 0 > > > > 10.69.69.70 in the R-URI is the UAS > > 10.69.69.69 in the TO header is the proxy > > 10.10.10.11 in the VIA/FROM is the UAC > > > > The ACK goes to the proxy and goes no further, so the 200 OK from the UAS > > keeps re-transmitting until the call drops. > > > > I'm trying to determine if the formatting for the ACK is incorrect or > not. > > The original re-INVITE does have route headers, the ACK above as you see, > > does not. > > > > I appreciate any insight you can provide. If there's additional > > information I can provide, please let me know. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Arsen Semenov _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
