Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Jan Janak wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Maxim Sobolev sobomax@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.
Maybe it is related as the ACK is generated by the proxy itself and the OPTIONS too.
Anyway, I think branch=0 is not a clean solution, but RFC 3261 (17.2.3) defines that clients must support old transaction matching schema too.
regards klaus