[SIPForum-discussion] problem with sip messageing

[Nitin Kapoor]

Hi,

Here i have doubt as bob said it should be a same. Because as far as i know
if any ACK have the same  via branch then it might be  incorrect for Acking
an INVITE 2xx response.

But at the same time this might be correct when acking non-2xx(with
different via branch id); but it is not correct when acking a 2xx. It needs
a new transaction ID per the magic cookie rules; thus need new via branch.

It is one of the infamous gotchas within rfc3261.

Now i might be wrong too, but still would need clarification on this from
others so that we can clear the things.

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor

On 22 April 2010 13:36, Bob Penfield <BPenfield at acmepacket.com> wrote:

>  The INVITE (packet #11) and the 488 response (packet #13) have a Via
> branch of “z9hG4bK14477ab44bcf128e-b5659-0”. The ACK (being sent by
> 4.71.122.180 in packet#14) to the 488 uses different a Via branch of
> “z9hG4bK14477ab44bcf128e-b5659-1“, therefore the ACK does not get matched
> with the response at the UAS and it retransmits the 488 response.
>
>
>
> The Via branch in an ACK to a non-success final response (3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx)
> must match the Via branch in the response being ACKed.
>
>
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
> (-:bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:
> discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Sijit Nair
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:23 AM
> *To:* discussion at sipforum.org
> *Subject:* [SIPForum-discussion] problem with sip messageing
>
>
>
> Can any one tell me the problem in this trace in related to messaging after
> ip198 send 488 to ip 180
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Sijit Nair
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100422/ebf7bb78/attachment-0001.html