-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
I posted the same issue in serusers list and nobody answers too. Seems that you are right! Bad for us. regards. - -- ============================================ Rodrigo P. Telles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> TI Manager Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it ============================================ reticent wrote: > I was one of the initial reporters of this "bug" > > In my case the issue was the use of Strict routing in the ACK or BYE > message that somehow wasn't caught by the "loose_route()" statement. > The UAC sends the messages with a URI of the SER proxy. > > I didn't get a very good reception to my request, i the feeling i got > was that it was passed off an as not important or uninteresting. In my > case i resolved the issue by upgrading the UAC that was sending the > ACK/BYE. > > I've seen at least 5-6 people report this, with the varying responses > (mostly that there was no issue, when it looked to me that there was). > I hope someone who understands the necessary specifications and also SER > would look into this and quash the issue once and for all (even if just > to diffinitively identify it) > > I would be interested in spending some time to try and get to the bottom > of the issue, i will dig up the data from previous emails this afternoon > and see if i can assist. > > > Rodrigo P. Telles wrote: > > Bogdan, > > Fistrly, thanks for your answer! > Reading some old posts about 'branch=0' I found some one saying that > it happend > because SER forward statelessly, but I'm using "t_relay()" and I > suppose it's a > statefull function, does'n it? > I saw this question many times in serusers maillist but no one answer it! > According with RFC3261 'branch=0' is not a valid branch ID (I know I > can use > syn_branch=0)! > > Best regards. > -- > ============================================ > Rodrigo P. Telles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Diretor de Tecnologia > Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it > ============================================ > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > > >>>> Hi Rodrigo, >>>> >>>> as I see in that email, the problem is actually a broken ACK which >>>> doesn't match the INVITE transaction and statelessly loops on the proxy >>>> - when statelessly fwded, the ACK gets branch=0 param in VIA. >>>> >>>> so, what is your problem? - the actually presents of branch=0 or why it >>>> gets there? >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> bogdan >>>> >>>> Rodrigo P. Telles wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> I've been experiencing some troubles with ACK's with branch=0. >>>> I found a thread about it but I didn't find a 'solution' folowing the >>>> thread. >>>> http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-April/004296.html >>>> >>>> Can some one point me to the correct answer for that question? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> -- >>>> ============================================ >>>> Rodrigo P. Telles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> TI Manager >>>> Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it >>>> ============================================ >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDMWTpiLK8unYgEMQRAq3xAJ9mfLKD+qBwdLm5+6O6qIL8tG9r1gCcCS/o X8DVzc9VnK7to235pJ88pwA= =jbFh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
