25 May
2003
25 May
'03
8:53 p.m.
At 11:57 PM 5/25/2003, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
Ok i first overlooked a problem in the messages.
I think the ATA is guilty because the request URI of the ACK is not the same
as the URI from the INVITE. And if i'm not wrong the URIs has to be the same
because the ACK for a negative reply belongs to the transaction.
Thanks Nils -- indeed, that's an ATA bug -- the URIs must be the same.
To fix the problem, I urge ATA users to urge Cisco. You can use some workarounds
(like disabling tm "ruri_matching" tm parameter in the about to be released
ser 0.8.11 version) but ATA is the primary place to fix. Actually, the best
thing to do with ATA is to use RFC-3261 transaction matching -- 2541 matching
has been obsoleted quite a while ago.
-jiri