| Summary: | ASTERISK-11825: Asterisk replies with "No compatible codecs" for t.38 Re-INVITE | ||
| Reporter: | mvf (mvf) | Labels: | |
| Date Opened: | 2008-04-10 16:55:59 | Date Closed: | 2008-04-14 09:49:17 |
| Priority: | Minor | Regression? | No |
| Status: | Closed/Complete | Components: | Channels/chan_sip/T.38 |
| Versions: | Frequency of Occurrence | ||
| Related Issues: | |||
| Environment: | Attachments: | ( 0) 20080410_sip_debug.txt ( 1) v1.patch | |
| Description: | I have an Asterisk (SVN) peering calls between two proxies. Incoming calls are sent to terminating proxy and routed from there to different brand GWs. Some of these gateways are Asterisk GW and others are Addpac GW. I found that for fax call the re-invite coming from terminating Asterisk GW is successfully handled by peering Asterisk but the re-invite from Addpac GW is dropped with "488 Not acceptable here". The only difference that I can see between the re-invites is in SDP, the one coming from Addpac GW don't have "a" fields after the "m" field of SDP like Asterisk do. Asterisk Re-Invite SDP: v=0 o=root 31588 31590 IN IP4 10.10.20.126 s=session c=IN IP4 10.10.20.126 t=0 0 m=image 4208 udptl t38 a=T38FaxVersion:0 a=T38MaxBitRate:9600 a=T38FaxFillBitRemoval:0 a=T38FaxTranscodingMMR:0 a=T38FaxTranscodingJBIG:0 a=T38FaxRateManagement:transferredTCF a=T38FaxMaxBuffer:400 a=T38FaxMaxDatagram:400 a=T38FaxUdpEC:t38UDPRedundancy Addpac Re-Invite SDP: v=0 o=005622457495 1207839041 1207839041 IN IP4 10.10.20.83 s=AddPac Gateway SDP c=IN IP4 10.10.20.83 t=1207839041 0 m=image 24086 udptl t38 After receiving re-invite from Addpac GW I see: [Apr 10 14:50:42] NOTICE[29023]: chan_sip.c:5493 process_sdp: No compatible codecs, not accepting this offer! Please check the attached sip debug for complete detail of these two calls. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** If I use 1.4.18 release in my Peering Asterisk instead of SVN both re-invites (coming from Asterisk GW and Addpac GW) are successfully handled and all fax calls work fine. I checked the difference between these two version and see that if I change in SVN branch the condition that is producing the drop to the way in which 1.4.18 release have the problem is solved for SVN release, please check v1.patch. | ||
| Comments: | By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2008-04-14 09:47:46 Repository: asterisk Revision: 114103 U branches/1.4/channels/chan_sip.c ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r114103 | file | 2008-04-14 09:47:44 -0500 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) | 4 lines It is possible for the remote side to say they want T38 but not give any capabilities. (closes issue ASTERISK-11825) Reported by: MVF ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&revision=114103 By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2008-04-14 09:48:40 Repository: asterisk Revision: 114104 _U trunk/ U trunk/channels/chan_sip.c ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r114104 | file | 2008-04-14 09:48:39 -0500 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) | 12 lines Merged revisions 114103 via svnmerge from https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/1.4 ........ r114103 | file | 2008-04-14 11:52:46 -0300 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) | 4 lines It is possible for the remote side to say they want T38 but not give any capabilities. (closes issue ASTERISK-11825) Reported by: MVF ........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&revision=114104 By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2008-04-14 09:49:17 Repository: asterisk Revision: 114105 _U branches/1.6.0/ U branches/1.6.0/channels/chan_sip.c ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r114105 | file | 2008-04-14 09:49:16 -0500 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) | 20 lines Merged revisions 114104 via svnmerge from https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk ................ r114104 | file | 2008-04-14 11:53:33 -0300 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) | 12 lines Merged revisions 114103 via svnmerge from https://origsvn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/branches/1.4 ........ r114103 | file | 2008-04-14 11:52:46 -0300 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) | 4 lines It is possible for the remote side to say they want T38 but not give any capabilities. (closes issue ASTERISK-11825) Reported by: MVF ........ ................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&revision=114105 | ||