You are absolutely right, that was my initial thought too. I checked with the ITSP today and they do not support re-INVITE's. On the other hand, they DO support REFER's. Therefore, the compensation sipXbridge does in order to overcome problems with REFER's is causing trouble with this particular ITSP. Any workaround for these problems?
Kind regards, Remco. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Lawrence" <xmlsc...@gmail.com> To: "r vanvugt" <r.vanv...@raffel.nl> Cc: "sipx-users" <sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org> Sent: Dinsdag 20 april 2010 23:21:13 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Subject: Re: [sipx-users] incoming calls from ITSP dropped by AA/IVR On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:18 +0200, r.vanv...@raffel.nl wrote: > > 1.) SipXbridge gets the REFER from sipxecs' proxy, and correctly > translates it to re-INVITE for the ITSP. > 2.) The ITSP replies with 100, trying, followed by 200 OK. > 3.) SipXbridge replies with BYE, Reason: Protocol error 200 OK with no > contact. > > So it looks like, sipxbridge does not like the reply from the ITSP > being a 200 OK. No, it doesn't like a 200 Ok that does not have a Contact header. That's a no-no.
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
