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

[Rodrigo P. Telles]

-----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 at 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 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
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users at openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>

>>


> _______________________________________________
> 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

iD8DBQFDMWTpiLK8unYgEMQRAq3xAJ9mfLKD+qBwdLm5+6O6qIL8tG9r1gCcCS/o
X8DVzc9VnK7to235pJ88pwA=
=jbFh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----