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@sipgate.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@gmail.com wrote:
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@sipgate.de wrote:
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@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Sebastian Damm Voice Engineer __________________________________________ sipgate GmbH
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- wbr, Serge