And this is now in the project's tracker:
<http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=152&project=1>
Feedback is welcome.
andrew
On Sep 15, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Mortensen wrote:
> Hi all. We've recently been experimenting with 302 redirects as the vehicle
> for call-forwarding, and ran into an issue with call-forward no answer. A
> small patch against (see below) fixed things.
>
> Caller and callee are Polycom 550s. The caller sends an INVITE to the callee,
> and the callee returns a 180 with a to-tag, establishing an early dialog.
> When sip-router's fr_inv_timer fires and sends the fake 408 reply to the
> INVITE, we handle enter the failure route and redirect to the forwarding
> address:
>
> # ... set URI to forwarded target here ...
> t_reply("302", "Call Forwarded");
> exit;
>
> This should have worked, but in our testing the caller would completely
> ignore the 302. I tracked it down to sip-router returning a new to-tag in the
> 302, not the to-tag used in the early dialog. The Polycoms were evidently
> rejecting the 302 from sip-router as not matching any known dialog because of
> the unrecognized to-tag. [1]
>
> My patch simply stores forwarded to-tags for early dialogs, making the
> winning to-tag available for the 302 reply. We've tested it with 3.0.3; the
> patch below is against git head. I'm happy to revise it to get it into
> acceptable form. Please let me know.
>
> Best,
> andrew
>
> [1] Oddly, our Cisco gateways don't care about the new to-tag from
> sip-router, and will happily redirect regardless of the tag value in the 302.
> Perhaps it's the result of a looser interpretation of RFC 3261 12.1 and 12.3.
>
> <sr-t_reply-302-totag.patch>_______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
