[Users] Problem with ACK's (branch=0)

[reticent]

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:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>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 at 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 at devel.it>
>>TI Manager
>>Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it
>>============================================
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Users mailing list
>Users at openser.org
>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>  
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFDKEGhiLK8unYgEMQRAlOHAJ4ufRDMaOizWX5TIsdN0aL5WDDypwCdEOZv
>GD+1ajtmD7JlabMMG7K0QS4=
>=YkTR
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>Users mailing list
>Users at openser.org
>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>  
>