To understand properly, this is after the re-INVITE from B to A? I will
look in the code as I get a chance, being out of the office for few days...
Cheers,
Daniel
On 20/01/15 13:13, Daniel Tryba wrote:
Trying to call a T.38 enabled endpoint B from an
endpoint A that doesn't. This
results in a "488 Not Acceptable" from A.
The kamailio (4.0.3) in between with topoh enabled (with mask_callid set to 1.
Kamailio ACKs the 488 to A, but the ACK has the wrong (masked) Call-ID,
resulting in the ACK to A being ignored, A keeps sending 488 at intervals
before just dropping the call.
My understanding is the Call-ID in the ACK has to be the same as the Call-ID
from the 488. But instead of sending the unmasked Call-ID used in all other
messages between A and Kamailio, the ACK contains the masked Call-ID used in
all messagea between A and Kamailio.
I can't find a bug report relating to this. Is this a known feature or maybe
fixed in newer versions?
A->Kamailio
SIP/2.0 488 Not acceptable here.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
109.235.32.40;branch=z9hG4bKf91a.c6c88747.0;received=109.235.32.40.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.19.162.1;branch=pocos-
rS4MusXox1l5QHyNxRy6uAXsEOdsxidSEAktxGZKWgeKCgeS-
RrKEAy057Nl9DEpWpefZD6AhGtwWDJjEqeuEAZgZs5iZA7*.
From: <sip:+31880100799@sip.pocos.nl:5060>;tag=as3869fe2a.
To: "+31880100705" <sip:+31880100705@sip.pocos.nl>;tag=as1b0b8097.
Call-ID: 0b5946b977210450571f767a19cd6fa0(a)99sip.pocos.nl.
CSeq: 102 INVITE.
Kamailio<-A
ACK sip:+31880100705@109.235.32.48 SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 109.235.32.40;branch=z9hG4bKf91a.c6c88747.0.
Max-Forwards: 16.
From: <sip:+31880100799@sip.pocos.nl:5060>;tag=as3869fe2a.
To: "+31880100705" <sip:+31880100705@sip.pocos.nl>;tag=as1b0b8097.
Call-ID: !!:xqXtWRMpZAngEsX3xGMtxGrgxDZgEA9JxR4AzGz8ZRIyWR4sh.yomqlACgxoC8K*.
CSeq: 102 ACK.
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda