10 Feb
2020
10 Feb
'20
6:12 p.m.
Hi
I believe you are using 5.2 or 5.3 series? This tend to work properly on 5.1 series
10.02.2020, 18:10, "Sebastian Damm" <damm(a)sipgate.de>de>:
Hi,
actually, our only problem is handling negative replies. The ACK
belongs to the same transaction and therefore has to carry the same
Via branch ID.
Sebastian
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:50 PM Yuriy Gorlichenko <ovoshlook(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
wbr,
Serge
ACK for successull response is a new
transaction. It has to be different. May be it is better to point provider to this?
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, 14:26 Sebastian Damm, <damm(a)sipgate.de> wrote:
--
Sebastian Damm
Voice Engineer
__________________________________________
sipgate GmbH
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users Hi,
I stumbled upon an interop problem with a carrier. We have the
following scenario:
Gateway --> Loadbalancer --> Carrier
The loadbalancer generates a Via header for each request. But since it
is stateless, the Via tag is generated for each request. As a
consequence, the Via tag in the ACK differs from the one in the
INVITE. And one carrier doesn't handle those ACKs if the Via tag
differs.
Is there a way to force the creation of a "deterministic" Via branch
tag? For example, building it from a hash over call-id and from-tag or
something like that?
Thanks in advance
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Damm
Voice Engineer
__________________________________________
sipgate GmbH
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users