Re: [reSIProcate-users] Compatability with RFC2543 clients

[Byron Campen <bcampen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	Wait, what was going on here? I can't get to the webpage describing  
the problem. Adam, by "cid" do you mean "tid"? The proxy code should  
be performing repair in the cases where the response doesn't have a  
proper transaction identifier.

Best regards,
Byron Campen


> Andrew:
>
> I'm not sure how much work we're willing to do in the stack core to  
> accommodate 2543 clients. Even the IETF has moved on such that  
> significant new protocol extensions abandon backwards  
> compatibility. My inclination would be to leave this particular  
> resip behavior unchanged -- in fact, it's not clear to me that we  
> even could fix it without violating the request-forwarding rules in  
> draft-sparks-sip-invfix-02.
>
> If you have a CCO account, you can follow the instructions here to  
> upgrade your ATA to a somewhat less ancient version of firmware,  
> which should solve your problem:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cata/186_188/2_15/ 
> english/administration/guide/sip/SIP88APC.html
>
> If you don't have a CCO account... post back to this list and see  
> if someone speaks up to help you out. ;-)
>
> /a
>
> P.S. Here's the technical explanation of what's going on: it looks  
> like this used to work until about SVN revision 6545 (August 2006)  
> -- it may have broken somewhat earlier than that, but it's hard to  
> tell. The code in SipMessage.cxx:374 has comments indicating that  
> returning an empty cid should cause the stack to simply forward a  
> response (presumably according to its via header field) -- but the  
> code that calls it from TransactionState.cxx:168 unceremoniously  
> discards the message instead. (At least, I think that's the code  
> path you're exercising -- turning debugging up to DEBUG for the  
> stack would confirm).
>
>
> Andrew Wood wrote:
> > Im trying to build a stric routing proxy using resip.
> >
> > Ive got it working with 2 Cisco IP phones fine, but Ive also got  
> > some old Cisco ATA186 which I dont think are RFC3261 compliant.
> >
> > Whenever one of these is involved in the call strange things happen.
> >
> > www.simple.org/notworking.html <http://www.simple.org/ 
> > notworking.html> shows a sample message exchange between an ATA  
> > 186 (202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) calling a Cisco  
> > IP phone (200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) via the  
> > resip based proxy at 192.168.254.254.
> >
> > The called phone rings but the 180 appears to be disliked by  
> > resiprocate when its forwarded on.
> >
> > I suspect Im doing something wrong with the forwarding of either  
> > the INVITE or the 180 but for a call between two Cisco IP phones  
> > it works fine.
> >
> > Any ideas please
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > Recommends you try OpenOffice.org - I'm
> > Microsoft free, you too can be.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-users mailing list
> > resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-users mailing list
> resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature