[SIPForum-discussion] Possible Spam : Re: 183 Session Progress without SDP

[Vivek Batra]

If this is matter of not receiving 100 Trying, then 183 Session Progress
(w/o SDP) can also be dropped in the network. Hence, I believe that
retransmission should be achieved by adding reliability in provisional
responses (using 100rel) instead sending the same provisional response
without SDP and then with SDP.
Anyway I am not very clear with the real world application of d'ing this.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz Zieleniewski
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:14 PM
To: Manish Aggarwal
Cc: discussion
Subject: Possible Spam : Re: [SIPForum-discussion] 183 Session Progress
without SDP

Hi All,

I totally agree with Manish,
One more thing that came to my mind was that gateway by sending this first
183 ASAP could assure that if for any reason originating UAC on the whole
sip downstream path didn't receive the 100 trying response this will cause
that this INVITE transaction will move to Proceeding state and there would
no retransmissions.

Cheers
- Tomasz Zieleniewski

2009/4/9 Manish Aggarwal <maaggarwal at gmail.com>:
> Multiple provisional responses is allowed as per the protocol spec.
> This can be used to create an early dialogue.
>
> A UAS will send this, when its taking long time to process INVITE (and 
> before sending 200 OK).
>
> Have heard of this behavior before though.
>
>
> -Manish
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, nitin kapoor <nitinkapoorr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We are facing one problem where we are getting two 183 session for 1 
>> INVITE. UAC sending the INVITE to Switch and switch has forwarded the 
>> same invite to UAS. Then UAS first send the 183 Session progress 
>> without SDP and after 2 Sec its sends the another 183 Session 
>> Progress with SDP which is something i am not able to understand.
>>
>> 1) Can you please tell me on which cases UAS sends the two 183 
>> Session progress like this.( with SDP & without SDP)?
>> 2) Is this the correct behaviour?
>>
>> I checked this on RFC3261 and another sip pdf but unable to search it.
>>
>> Please find the attached Traces.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Nitin Kapoor
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit 
>> your delivery options, please visit 
>> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit 
> your delivery options, please visit 
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your
delivery options, please visit
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org


Email Scanned for Virus & Dangerous Content by : www.CleanMailGateway.com