Trying to understand if it is supported, not fix something specifically, because I believe it is not supported at all. I'm pretty sure after reading an exchange between Ranga and Robert Jolly that it's a strict requirement in RFC 3261, section 13.2.1 and Section 14.1 point it out pretty clearly, as well as RFC 3725 but was looking for some expert advice on it. Wasn't sure if some sort of work around had been created for it, as an example, in Ranga's hidden strict-protocol-enforcement.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:46 AM To: sipXecs developer discussions Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [sipx-dev] ITSP handling of Invites without SDP Well, I think sipXbridge uses re-invites to handle a call transfer, and what is likely happening is they are not re-negotiating media "mid-call", which means calls will break when MOH is activated too. It sounds like they are not supporting re-invites, which was discussed on the list just yesterday. In that discussion the itsp would support REFER which means more limited success could be achieved via an unmanaged gateway (not using sipxbridge), but there would still be media issues on certain call types (attended transfer from polycom handset, as an example). A call trace would tell a lot. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Todd Hodgen <[email protected]> wrote: Sorry for the cross post, trying to work through an issue since changing my email address I have an ITSP that has a new platform that differs from its legacy platform in that it can only handle Invites that have the SDP. In my testing with them, when a call is answered by the auto attendant, and then transferred to an extension, it rings and then hangs the call up. They call this 3PCC, essentially they can only handle Invites with SDP. This new platform supports diffserve marking, which is a great reason to be able to move to it, but the lack of support for Invites without SDP is an obstacle it seems. They claim this is perfectly acceptable in the standards. Can someone confirm if that is the case or not? Additionally, there were some fixes being created for ill behaving ITSPs, does anyone recall if this was one of them. It tried these trunks on 4.2.1, without success. Or, has anyone found a workaround for this short of an external Session Border Controller? Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. I'll keep reading the archives in the mean time. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/ -- ====================== Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 sip: [email protected] Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: [email protected] LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 sip: [email protected] Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/ Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
_______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
