[SIPForum-discussion] Branch parameter v/s CSeq as transaction identifier

[Nitin Kapoor]

Hello Vijay,

As you mentioned that CSEQ value always be a incremented since previous
request has been responded and another request is supposed to be a new
request as correspondence the retransmission of earlier request.

*But i saw the traces where the "CSEQ" value was the same in the second
invite also, and that scenario it may be possible that UA can send the 2nd
Invite with a different call-ID. Which means CSEQ can remain the same in 2nd
INVITE*?

Please let me know if the above statement is correct or wrong.

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor

On 1 February 2010 02:24, SIP Babie <sipbabie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Forum Members,
>
> Please provide your inputs on the same.
>
> Regards
> sipBabie
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:39 PM, SIP Babie <sipbabie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I would like to know why and how is a branch parameter in Via header able
>> to identify a transaction, and if so, why do we need CSeq header to identify
>> a transaction?
>>
>> If possible please explain with an example.
>>
>> Regards
>> sipBabie
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100201/e35c0d03/attachment-0002.html>