Jan Janak wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Maxim Sobolev
<sobomax(a)sippysoft.com> wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Why not
to use a SIP/2.0 compliant branch (z9hG4bK...)? any reason?
Maybe this is the
method to detect keep-alive replies and absorb them
before they enter dialplan processing.
I don't think it's intentional.
There was a thread discussing this a long time ago, see:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2005-April/018559.html
Hope that helps.
It doesn't look like the same issue at all. The thread is about branch
in ACK being different from branch in 200 OK, while this one is about
branch in OPTIONS that the proxy generates to keep NAT binding alive.
Regards,
--
Maksym Sobolyev
Sippy Software, Inc.
Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts
T/F: +1-646-651-1110
Web:
http://www.sippysoft.com
MSN: sales(a)sippysoft.com
Skype: SippySoft