>> Hi Rodrigo, >> as I see in that email, the problem is actually a broken ACK which >> doesn't match the INVITE transaction and statelessly loops on the proxy >> - when statelessly fwded, the ACK gets branch=0 param in VIA. >> so, what is your problem? - the actually presents of branch=0 or why it >> gets there? >> regards, >> bogdan >> Rodrigo P. Telles wrote: >> Hi folks, >> I've been experiencing some troubles with ACK's with branch=0. >> I found a thread about it but I didn't find a 'solution' folowing the >> thread. >> http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-April/004296.html >> Can some one point me to the correct answer for that question? >> Thanks in advance. >> -- >> ============================================ >> Rodrigo P. Telles <telles(a)devel.it> >> TI Manager >> Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it >> ============================================ >>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I posted the same issue in serusers list and nobody answers too. Seems that you are right! Bad for us. regards. - -- ============================================ Rodrigo P. Telles <telles(a)devel.it> TI Manager Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it ============================================ reticent wrote: > I was one of the initial reporters of this "bug" > > In my case the issue was the use of Strict routing in the ACK or BYE > message that somehow wasn't caught by the "loose_route()" statement. > The UAC sends the messages with a URI of the SER proxy. > > I didn't get a very good reception to my request, i the feeling i got > was that it was passed off an as not important or uninteresting. In my > case i resolved the issue by upgrading the UAC that was sending the > ACK/BYE. > > I've seen at least 5-6 people report this, with the varying responses > (mostly that there was no issue, when it looked to me that there > was). I hope someone who understands the necessary specifications > and also SER > would look into this and quash the issue once and for all (even if just > to diffinitively identify it) > > I would be interested in spending some time to try and get to the > bottom > of the issue, i will dig up the data from previous emails this > afternoon > and see if i can assist. > > > Rodrigo P. Telles wrote: > > Bogdan, > > Fistrly, thanks for your answer! > Reading some old posts about 'branch=0' I found some one saying that > it happend > because SER forward statelessly, but I'm using "t_relay()" and I > suppose it's a > statefull function, does'n it? > I saw this question many times in serusers maillist but no one > answer it! > According with RFC3261 'branch=0' is not a valid branch ID (I know I > can use > syn_branch=0)! > > Best regards. > -- > ============================================ > Rodrigo P. Telles <telles(a)devel.it> > Diretor de Tecnologia > Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it > ============================================ > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > > > > >>>> Hi Rodrigo, >>>> >>>> as I see in that email, the problem is actually a broken ACK which >>>> doesn't match the INVITE transaction and statelessly loops on the >>>> proxy >>>> - when statelessly fwded, the ACK gets branch=0 param in VIA. >>>> >>>> so, what is your problem? - the actually presents of branch=0 or >>>> why it >>>> gets there? >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> bogdan >>>> >>>> Rodrigo P. Telles wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> I've been experiencing some troubles with ACK's with branch=0. >>>> I found a thread about it but I didn't find a 'solution' folowing >>>> the >>>> thread. >>>> http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-April/004296.html >>>> >>>> Can some one point me to the correct answer for that question? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> -- >>>> ============================================ >>>> Rodrigo P. Telles <telles(a)devel.it> >>>> TI Manager >>>> Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it >>>> ============================================ >>>