|Summary:||ASTERISK-02785: pedantic=yes makes calls to voip providers impossible|
|Date Opened:||2004-11-11 10:21:45.000-0600||Date Closed:||2011-06-07 14:10:42|
|Environment:||Attachments:||( 0) sip-debug.txt|
|Description:||If I enable pedantic checks than I can't call sipgate.de(SER) |
****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ******
ststus 183 and 200 seems to be ignored from asterisk...
and i get :
Nov 11 17:21:28 WARNING: chan_sip.c:666 retrans_pkt: Maximum retries exceeded on call email@example.com for seqno 103 (Non-critical Request)
|Comments:||By: Brian West (bkw918) 2004-11-11 10:44:29.000-0600|
Well don't enable it... That option is only needed in very few cases.
By: typ1 (typ1) 2004-11-11 10:57:29.000-0600
But I have such case :) I have to deal with custom SIP gateway which needs pedantic checks !
By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-11-11 11:05:49.000-0600
Obviously a sip debug would be helpful too. Please read the bug placing guidelines.
By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-11-11 13:15:26.000-0600
Interesting - we succeed to match the cancel, but not the 200 OK.
By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2004-11-11 21:20:57.000-0600
It would appear as though we are not sending their tag in the second invite, causing them to generate a different tag in the second half of the dialog. Can you issue a "sip show channel <foo>" where "<foo>" is the callid of the call *after* the initial invite, when the provisionals are just starting to come back? Thanks!
By: khb (khb) 2004-11-12 22:57:26.000-0600
See also # 0002697
I think this is a problem seen occationally on 1xx/2xx responses from some providers where the to-tags are mismatched.
I have a configuration parameter 'accept_to-tag_mismatch=yes/no' which lets my SIP accept such mismatches on 1xx/2xx while doing full tag matching elsewhere. We are regularly registering with a number of SIPGATE accounts on several of their domains (sipgate.de, .at, .co.uk) without a problem anymore. There were some strange differences between the .at and .co.uk accounts wrt to the .de accounts, despite them apparently being served by the same SER.
Last week I noticed that X-Ten has a similar configuration check mark in the new eyeBeam phone.
edited on: 11-12-04 23:31
By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2004-11-21 04:21:42.000-0600
Any update to this report? Still a problem?
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2004-12-10 22:22:50.000-0600
I am closing this because it is either not an issue or the author has lost interest in the bug.
> I have a configuration parameter 'accept_to-tag_mismatch=yes/no' which lets my SIP accept such mismatches on 1xx/2xx while doing full tag matching elsewhere.
Do you care to release your SIP changes? If you make any improvments, you would be helping a lot of people if you shared them...