On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Andy Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Woof! > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:34:34 -0400, Robert Joly (JIRA) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 1- Inbound call from AT&T's Nokia-based gateway to a local sipXecs user >> 2- INVITE is forked to phone which replies with 180 Ringing therefore >> establishing an early dialog with the AT&T gateway >> 3- The phone does not answer so sipXecs forks the call to voicemail >> 4- voicemail replies with 180 Ringing followed by 200 OK which >> establishes a second dialog with the AT&T gateway > > Before we do work to "fix" this flaw, lets open a ticket with AT&T/Nokia. > > Then instead of full b2bua mode, would it be easier to have sipxbridge > supress all 1xx responses towards the provider? Then the gateway would > only see the final responses from the answering fork (and in some race > conditions final responses from secondary forks as well, but hopefully > those'll be ignored).
I re-write the To tag and call-id when forwarding the response ( given that sipxrbidge is a b2bua). So forking should be hidden from the ITSP > > What would "break" if we didn't send 1xx's? Sometimes you get 183 session progress with SDP. That would not be forwarded to the ITSP. > > --Woof! > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
